• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John boehner sex probe

My mother is a native German speaker and my first lanquage was German. I respectfully disagree. Oh and the wife is a German teacher.

this is America dude


deal with it

its not pronounced BONER here in Southern Ohio
 
Your point is moot. He WAS in fact Impeached. And you also conveniently gloss over the WHY. He was on trial for sexual harassment. The details of the Jones case seldom are even discussed when considering his perjury charges. In many ways, Lewinsky was the best thing that could have happened to him. It put the focus on the pres boning an intern and having her insert cigars into her snatch prior to him smoking them instead of on the account of him exposing himself to a campaing staffer and then asking her to blow him.

Look...no one gave a crap about the Flowers affair. No one was interested in the numerous women he slept with. The rape...the mashing...the sexual harrassment...those were different because they were not consensual. If he didnt want to get nailed for perjury then he should have learned from Ms Lewinsky when to keep his mouth shut.

No Bill Clinton was aquitted by the Senate. If you don't believe me look it up.

Bill Clinton was sleaze ball and I dont' respect his wife either. However a witch hunt wasting taxpayer's dollars isn't acceptable either.
 
don't forget the once shining star of the chicago dem crime family and a poster child for affirmative action-Rhodes Scholar Mel Reynolds who was convicted of extortion and banging a 16 year old girl. what republican congressman has been convicted of child rape in recent history.

Once again, we have to go back 16 years to find an example to attempt to balance out dozen contemporary ones on the other side .
 
Last edited:
what was craig convicted of?

I have yet to meet either a defense attorney or a criminal prosecutor who believes the state could have convicted Craig of anything if he had gone to trial. the cop jumped way too soon and in the absence of physical contact or spoken words, the state didn't have sufficient evidence of any crime

Get real.... For one, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (now why did he do that?) If you think he was a choir boy, then perhaps you are also in the market for a bridge in Brooklyn. ...and, even if you want to throw this example out, there are plenty of others (from this century...).

The Top 10 Conservative Sex Scandals | NEWS JUNKIE POST

TurtleDude just well illustrated my earlier point that Conservs do not walk away from the bad apples, they look the other way.
 
Last edited:
Once again, we have to go back 16 years to find an example to attempt to balance out dozen contemporary ones on the other side .

16 years-a conviction for statutory rape was balanced out by what GOP conviction

Spitzer, McGreasey, and John Edwards-all proven beyond any doubt

what have you got
 
Get real.... For one, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (now why did he do that?) If you think he was a choir boy, then perhaps you are also in the market for a bridge in Brooklyn. ...and, even if you want to throw this example out, there are plenty of others (from this century...).

The Top 10 Conservative Sex Scandals | NEWS JUNKIE POST

TurtleDude just well illustrated my earlier point that Conservs do not walk away from the bad apples, they look the other way.

I guess you want to argue with what you wanted me to have posted rather than what I actually did. its a common tactic among certain posters here
 
Now, if any of you want to discount the source of the material, I need to remind you of the John Edwards story.

If this story is true, he is a piece of crap for cheating on his wife. Politicians should learn to not cheat on their spouses, get a divorce. I don't care. Having a family and pretending it's perfect is not as asset when you act like this. His wife sounds like a decent woman... staying at home in Ohio with his kids, while he travels and does political stuff.
 
Why do liberals never understand this. It's called integrity, and when you don't have it, you're vulnerable to almost anything.

Let's say China wants nuclear secrets, and they threaten Bill Clinton that if he doesn't turn them over, they'll make sure the press finds out about Monica Lewinsky.......

Just how far would John Edwards have gone to keep his situation quiet if given the chance?

If this is true, Boehner should be ousted as Speaker, and the people of Ohio need to get rid of him first chance.Character matters. If you can't honor your most basic commitments, you shouldn't serve.

Believe it or not, Middleground, LOTS of people are true to their spouses. Lots of people tell the truth and do the right thing. They should be our leaders, not the unprincipled, weak-minded egomaniacs of our society.

As far as I've seen, the whole thing is made up by that sleazy blogger. Is there evidence of any kind that I have missed? If not, than why are we even talking about it? As far as anyone knows, Boehner has always been faithful to his wife.
 
As far as I've seen, the whole thing is made up by that sleazy blogger. Is there evidence of any kind that I have missed? If not, than why are we even talking about it? As far as anyone knows, Boehner has always been faithful to his wife.

There is some talk that the lady in question is stained with a strange orange dye and it will not wash off. ;)
 
No Bill Clinton was aquitted by the Senate. If you don't believe me look it up.

Bill Clinton was sleaze ball and I dont' respect his wife either. However a witch hunt wasting taxpayer's dollars isn't acceptable either.

How does that whole sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape thing sit with you?

He was in fact 'impeached'. Look up who does what in congress.
 
Bill Clinton was indeed impeached which is the action of the House of Representatives.
He was then acquitted by the Senate.

The two charges he faced were perjury and obstruction of justice. 67 votes were needed for conviction. On the perjury charge, only 45 votes for conviction were cast and all by Republicans. On the obstruction charge, 50 votes were cast for conviction, again all by Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Nothing more nor less.

Now...since he absolutely committed perjury and his actions OBVIOUSLY were intended to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case why do you suppose no democrats voted to support the charges? Keeping in mind of course that we arent talking the crime of getting a hummer from a willing participant (not a crime) but of wanking off and exposing himself to a campaign staffer and asking her (against her will) to blow him...
 
How did his lies about a completely unrelated consentual affair obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case?

Talk to an attorney about establishing patterns, periods of prior bad acts. Im sure they can explain it to you. The Jones attorneys were pointing out that the accusation would not be out of the realm of possibility considering the totality of his behaviors. He lied under oath in giving his response.
 
Talk to an attorney about establishing patterns, periods of prior bad acts. Im sure they can explain it to you. The Jones attorneys were pointing out that the accusation would not be out of the realm of possibility considering the totality of his behaviors. He lied under oath in giving his response.

The testimony would only establish a pattern of engaging in consensual affairs, no?
 
Last edited:
Why are we discussing this at all?
The Enquirer is a joke to start with, and lest assured that it would be taken seriously in political circles
 
The testimony would only establish a pattern of engaging in consensual affairs, no?

Again...ask an attorney. The judge in the case allowed the question so whether you or I think it relevant is irrelevant. The question was asked of a defendent under oath. He lied. I dont pretend to be a lawyer, but Im pretty sure the law states you cant lie if you dont like the question.

Of course...I can understand the hesitance in answering the question...he WAS after all on trial for wanking in front of a campaign staffer and sexually harrassing her.
 
You were the one that said he was OBVIOUSLY obstructing justice. You should support that claim, not an attorney.

He lied while under oath on trial for exposing himself to a campaign staffer while he was jerking off (he...there's a great guy worth defending BTW)(luckily for him, the accusation of rape and sexual assault didnt surface until after the Jones trial was settled). Im GUESSING...now...just GUESSING that he was trying to avoid being exposed as the kind of pervert that would have a White House staffer using a cigar as a dildo then smoking said cigar. I'm GUESSING he thought that would be a little incriminating. He was accused of perjury (check) and obstructing justice.
 
Im GUESSING...

So you were LYING before when you said it was OBVIOUS that he lied in order to obstruct justice.

The other factor to consider is that whether or not he ****ed Lewinsky while wearing a tutu and blowing a llama would have no bearing on the accuracy of Paula Jones' accusations.

Her case was not hindered by his lies (because the veracity of her claims would be the same with or without Cigar-gate), thus justice was not obstructed.
 
Last edited:
So you were LYING before when you said it was obvious that he intended to obstruct justice.

Obvious to anyone that doesnt have a vested interest in making sure that under no circumstances you can possibly find that repulsive scumbag guilty of anything. But to you...not obvious.
 
Obvious to anyone that doesnt have a vested interest in making sure that under no circumstances you can possibly find that repulsive scumbag guilty of anything. But to you...not obvious.

No, it's obvious to anyone who has a vested interest in making sure that scumbag is absolutely guilty of anything he was charged with.

I, however, think it's obvious he committed perjury. I also think it's asinine to say that his perjury was actually an obstruction of justice when justice was not at all obstructed by his lies.
 
No, it's obvious to anyone who has a vested interest in making sure that scumbag is absolutely guilty of anything he was charged with.

I, however, think it's obvious he committed perjury. I also think it's asinine to say that his perjury was actually an obstruction of justice when justice was not at all obstructed by his lies.

The scumbag WAS guilty. Thats the problem you dont like to admit. And whats obvious to some isnt obviously obvious to others. Me...I tend to look at someone lying while under oath as trying to avoid disclosure for motive...hence...obstruction. But thats just me. On the plus side...its nice to see Haymarket is back in town.
 
The scumbag WAS guilty

You keep saying he was guilty. That's your opinion, so support it.

How was justice obstructed by his lies? How did his lies obstruct the Jones case? (hint: the case would have had the same exact result even if Clinton had told the truth)

And whats obvious to some isnt obviously obvious to others.

:prof just because something seems obvious to you doesn't mean you have it right. You are perfectly capable of being wrong.

Me...I tend to look at someone lying while under oath as trying to avoid disclosure for motive ...hence...obstruction.

Uh, the motive for sexual harassment is pretty cut and dry. No need for questioning.

But thats just me.

See, now you contradict yourself. You are admitting that this is just your opinion, even though previously tyou try to portray it as solid fact. That's lying.
 
You keep saying he was guilty. That's your opinion, so support it.

How was justice obstructed by his lies? How did his lies obstruct the Jones case? (hint: the case would have had the same exact result even if Clinton had told the truth)



:prof just because something seems obvious to you doesn't mean you have it right. You are perfectly capable of being wrong.



Uh, the motive for sexual harassment is pretty cut and dry. No need for questioning.



See, now you contradict yourself. You are admitting that this is just your opinion, even though previously tyou try to portray it as solid fact. That's lying.

He lied under oath while being questioned in a lawsuit alleging that he sexually harrassed a campaign staffer by playing with his junk with a towel over it, then when she walked into the room as requested, he stood up, dropped towel, and asked said campaign staffer to 'kiss it'. While being questioned under oath he denied having sexual relations with a White House intern. Facts support he lied under oath, for cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom