• 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!

Amnesty International Wants Bush Prosecuted for Admitted Waterboarding

Or it was about money and not any actual guilt. You can't make these judgements without a solid case. A settlement alone does not speak to guilt.

I agree, when it comes to product liability cases. sometimes it is cheaper to settle. In Clinton's case it would've been cheaper to pay his lawyers to fight it than to pay Jones hush money...IF he was innocent. What's that old saying..."where there's smoke, there's fire". I could give Bill the benefit of the doubt if Jones was the only one saying Clinton assaulted/abused her. But that is not the case. Clinton has a long history of being accused of sexual misconduct. Do you seriously believe that ALL of these women are lying?

Kathleen Willey
Juanita Broaddrick
Paula Jones
Monica Lewinski
Gennifer Flowers
Elizabeth Ward Gracen

the list goes on and on. Regardless of what you think of his politics....Bill Clinton is a scumbag with little or no respect for women.
 
No, it most assuredly does not. There are lots of reasons to settle that have nothing at all to do with guilt.

I disagree. A public figure doesn't settle for $850K (without a confidentiality agreement, no less) unless he's guilty as sin. You just don't want to believe it.
 
Last edited:
In Clinton's case it would've been cheaper to pay his lawyers to fight it than to pay Jones hush money...IF he was innocent.
That all depends upon how much Jones' silence costs.
 
I disagree. A public figure doesn't settle for $850K without a confidentiality agreement unless he's guilty as sin.
Sorry, but you just don't know jack **** about settling out of court and why it's done, and I don't have the inclination to attempt to pry you loose from your tenacious grasp on ignorance.
You just don't want to believe it.
What don't I want to believe? That Clinton was guilty? I think he was guilty, but thanks again for proving how you don't know **** about that which you're talking.

Any more ridiculous leaps and assumptions you would like to make?
 
Silent on what? If Clinton wasn't guilty why did he settle and why would he be worried about Jones' silence?
Why would I waste my time explaining this to you when I know full well that all you will do is deflect, misinterpret, then run away in fear?

All you need to know is that I'm correct and any possible rebuttal you may come up with is wrong and probably ridiculously uninformed. It'll save us both a lot of time. :)
 
That all depends upon how much Jones' silence costs.

apparently it cost $850K. if he was innocent, I'm sure his lawyers could've proved it for less than that. :shrug:
 
apparently it cost $850K. if he was innocent, I'm sure his lawyers could've proved it for less than that. :shrug:
I dunno, lawyers of the caliber he was using don't work cheap.
 
Why would I waste my time explaining this to you when I know full well that all you will do is deflect, misinterpret, then run away in fear?

All you need to know is that I'm correct and any possible rebuttal you may come up with is wrong and probably ridiculously uninformed. It'll save us both a lot of time. :)

Yes, you are indeed a legend in your own mind. Interesting how someone is willing to pay 850k for an out of court settlement when innocent of all charges. I am sure that makes sense to a liberal but not anyone else.
 
Sorry, but you just don't know jack **** about settling out of court and why it's done, and I don't have the inclination to attempt to pry you loose from your tenacious grasp on ignorance.What don't I want to believe? That Clinton was guilty? I think he was guilty, but thanks again for proving how you don't know **** about that which you're talking.

Any more ridiculous leaps and assumptions you would like to make?

Your personal attack is completely uncalled for. Further, your post makes no sense. If you don't know how to carry on an intelligent argument, please don't make the rest of us suffer through your flailing.
 
Yes, you are indeed a legend in your own mind. Interesting how someone is willing to pay 850k for an out of court settlement when innocent of all charges. I am sure that makes sense to a liberal but not anyone else.
I'm not a liberal, so I wouldn't know. :shrug:
 
If there were an organiaztion that actually stood for human rights, I might support such proceedings, since the use of torture is repugnant.

Considering the way the organization in question has been politicized to the point it has an agenda that goes well beyond the championing of human rights, I'd say this just smacks of more UNHRC type politics as usual.

Both sides can now feel free to shoot me.
 
Your personal attack is completely uncalled for. Further, your post makes no sense. If you don't know how to carry on an intelligent argument, please don't make the rest of us suffer through your flailing.
:yawn:

Sorry to have to point out the obvious. And please, by all means report me. Here's the link.
 
I don't report. Yawn away. You did definitely point out the obvious. You got nothin'.
Do you know why someone would settle if not guilty? There are actually a few reasons. Feel free to Google it and educate yourself.
 
Do you know why someone would settle if not guilty? There are actually a few reasons. Feel free to Google it and educate yourself.

I don't see why Clinton would have settled if he was not guilty. The cat was already out of the bag and his reputation soiled. I don't see what he had to gain by settling. unless...he were guilty of much, much worse and was afraid that if he went to court ALL would come out. :shrug:

settle with Jones to keep the rest of his skeletons in the closet????
 
I don't see why Clinton would have settled if he was not guilty. The cat was already out of the bag and his reputation soiled. I don't see what he had to gain by settling. unless...he were guilty of much, much worse and was afraid that if he went to court ALL would come out. :shrug:

settle with Jones to keep the rest of his skeletons in the closet????
I could see him settling just to get it out of the papers. He could have settled out of pressure from the party because of an election coming up (I don't remember when all this happened relative to elections). He could have settled to keep things out of the public record that, while not illegal, may have made him look bad. He may have settled because even though he was factually innocent, the case against him was compelling enough that he may have risked losing (remember that in a civil case, the bar is "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a resonable doubt" -- that's a much easier standard).

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other good reasons that do not involve guilt or innocence.
 
Why on earth would any individual settle out of court for 850K if they weren't guilty?

For many reasons, including ending it, not having it drag out and cost in terms of other goals.
 
I could see him settling just to get it out of the papers. He could have settled out of pressure from the party because of an election coming up (I don't remember when all this happened relative to elections). He could have settled to keep things out of the public record that, while not illegal, may have made him look bad. He may have settled because even though he was factually innocent, the case against him was compelling enough that he may have risked losing (remember that in a civil case, the bar is "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a resonable doubt" -- that's a much easier standard).

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other good reasons that do not involve guilt or innocence.

yeah, but none of those reasons were "effective" by settling, it didn't keep it out of the papers, etc. It was still an issue. IMHO, IF he had been innocent, he would've taken it to court, proved it and then said "see, i told you so". :shrug: It's not like he had anything to lose...he was already convicted in the court of public opinion anyway and since it was a civil case there was no chance of him going to jail.

As I said earlier: I think he has/had much more damaging skeletons in the closet and he settled in order to avoid the possibility of those coming to light :shrug:
 
Last edited:
It could be as simple as "I don't want to be bothered with it and waste the time, damage is done, but I have better things to do, so here is the money"

Settlement does not equal guilt.
 
yeah, but none of those reasons were "effective" by settling, it didn't keep it out of the papers, etc. It was still an issue. IMHO, IF he had been innocent, he would've taken it to court, proved it and then said "see, i told you so". :shrug: It's not like he had anything to lose...he was already convicted in the court of public opinion anyway and since it was a civil case there was no chance of him going to jail.
I should have been more clear -- it would no longer be newsworthy after the settlement had been reached, whereas a trial (which would definitely have lasted for weeks, if not months) would have kept the issue in the papers for that whole time.

As to the court of public opinion, he remained pretty popular for his tenure IIRC, so he had very little to gain and a lot to lose by taking it to trial.

I would say that the reality of the situation is that we'll never really know though. Only he and Paula Jones know for sure. :shrug:
 
I should have been more clear -- it would no longer be newsworthy after the settlement had been reached, whereas a trial (which would definitely have lasted for weeks, if not months) would have kept the issue in the papers for that whole time.

As to the court of public opinion, he remained pretty popular for his tenure IIRC, so he had very little to gain and a lot to lose by taking it to trial.

I would say that the reality of the situation is that we'll never really know though. Only he and Paula Jones know for sure. :shrug:


I guess it's better to be an accused rapist than a convicted rapist...
 
Oh, so torture is ok if we're really upset.
You know this is basically how the enemy justifies torturing Americans, right?

Terrorists aren't just torturing Americans. They are cutting their heads off.

Terorists will kill anyone - men, women, children, other Muslims. It really doesn't matter to them.

And these are the people you're sympathizing with?
 
Back
Top Bottom