• 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

VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Facts support he lied under oath. That's why I say it's obvious he commited perjury.

Facts also state that he lied for a cause. Very few people lie for no reason.

What the facts don't show is that he lied for the prupose of obstructing justice. There are other possible reasons for him lying, not the least of them being that he was a married man.

The facts also show that the questioning did not have any legitimate point with regard to proving Jones' case that he sexually harassed her. Regardless of how he answered, the questions were not about what he did during the alleged incident. They were about a completely unrelated incident of consensual sex with someone else entirely. They were an attempt at character assassination.

One must look at this case as one looks at ALL criminal cases. Innocent until proven guilty.

It's pretty obvious that he was proven to be guilty of perjury.

He was not proven to be guilty of obstruction of justice because there was no evidence which was presented which proved that he lied in order to obstruct justice.

The idea that he was guilty of this crime is merely an opinion, and it is one that is not supported by facts. It is entirely based on conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Facts support he lied under oath. That's why I say it's obvious he commited perjury.

Facts also state that he lied for a cause. Very few people lie for no reason.

What the facts don't show is that he lied for the prupose of obstructing justice. There are other possible reasons for him lying, not the least of them being that he was a married man.

The facts also show that the questioning did not have any legitimate point with regard to proving Jones' case that he sexualy harrased her. REgardless of how he answered, teh questions were not about what he did during the alleged incident. they were about a completely unrelated incident of consensual sex with someone else entirely.

One must look at the case as one looks at ALL criminal cases. Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven to be guilty of perjury. He was not proven tot be guilty of obstruction of justice. That is merely your opinion, and it is one that is not supported by facts. It is entirely based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

The facts regarding his reputation as a married man are that he was known to have had multiple affairs. He carried on a 12 year affair with Jennifer Flowers, with previously released taped recordings. You stick to whats obvious to you.
 
VanceMack said:
The facts regarding his reputation as a married man are that he was known to have had multiple affairs. He carried on a 12 year affair with Jennifer Flowers, with previously released taped recordings.
Click to expand...

And none of that does anything to prove that he harrassed Jones. None of it.
 
Tucker Case said:
And none of that does anything to prove that he harrassed Jones. None of it.
Click to expand...

Nope...you'd have to go to his decision to settle out of court. AFTER the trial had already caused his **** to be dragged into public.
 
Tucker Case said:
:prof It doesn't need to go to a jury in order for justice to be served.
Click to expand...
In order to aviod being convicted Clinton entered into an agrement with prosecutors that included paying Jones and losing his license to practise law. I don't think it was much in the way of justice myself, but rather side stepping it.
 
Zaserac said:
In order to aviod being convicted Clinton entered into an agrement with prosecutors that included paying Jones and losing his license to practise law. I don't think it was much in the way of justice myself, but rather side stepping it.
Click to expand...

Check your facts. It was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. He was never in danger of being convicted of anything in that case.
 
Tucker Case said:
Check your facts. It was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. He was never in danger of being convicted of anything in that case.
Click to expand...
No need to check them again. Clinton entered into his arrangment to aviod obstruction of justice and perjury charges steming from that case and those charges would not have been of a civil nature!
 
Zaserac said:
No need to check them again. Clinton entered into his arrangment to aviod obstruction of justice and perjury charges steming from that case and those charges would not have been of a civil nature!
Click to expand...

Check your facts. He did face obstruction of justice and perjury charges.

He was also found in contempt of court.
 
Clinton made two mistakes in the Lewinski case:

First one was in not keeping his pants zipped in the first place, but we all know that.

The second one was in not looking his questioners in the face when asked about it and saying, "That is none of your damn business. Next question."

The president of the US made an error in judgment, which precipitated a scandal, just as it should. Bad judgment on the part of the president is not something to be taken lightly. When Nixon made the bad judgment of trying to protect his supporters who were guilty of burglary, he was impeached and lost his presidency, after all.

Still, neither Lewinski nor Watergate was the major scandal of the 20th. century. Neither one jeopardized the Constitution or involved treason. That one has to have been the incident in which arms were sold to an enemy of the United States and the proceeds used to subvert the will of Congress. That one did jeopardize the Constitution, and did involve treason, and deserves the title of "worst scandal of the 20th. century."
 
Dittohead not! said:
Clinton made two mistakes in the Lewinski case:

First one was in not keeping his pants zipped in the first place, but we all know that.

The second one was in not looking his questioners in the face when asked about it and saying, "That is none of your damn business. Next question."

The president of the US made an error in judgment, which precipitated a scandal, just as it should. Bad judgment on the part of the president is not something to be taken lightly. When Nixon made the bad judgment of trying to protect his supporters who were guilty of burglary, he was impeached and lost his presidency, after all.

Still, neither Lewinski nor Watergate was the major scandal of the 20th. century. Neither one jeopardized the Constitution or involved treason. That one has to have been the incident in which arms were sold to an enemy of the United States and the proceeds used to subvert the will of Congress. That one did jeopardize the Constitution, and did involve treason, and deserves the title of "worst scandal of the 20th. century."
Click to expand...

Heck...Ive already said...I dont know which came first...the chicken or being married to Hillary, but I dont know that I blame him for catting around. And I've also said all things considered, I think he did a decent job as president.
 
Tucker Case said:
False. Civil settlements have no bearing on criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...
I guess I was not clear enough. Let me try again.
Following Clinton's settlement with Jones federal prosecutors were going to prosecute him for actions stemming from the Jones case. Like I said before.

In order to avoid being federally prosecuted Clinton entered in his agreement that saved him from prosecution. Then rather than face disbarment he resigned. Simply put those are the facts. They still have not changed. I suppose it is possible he might not have been convicted. I think he knew that there was a pretty good chance he would not only be convicted of perjury but possibly obstruction of justice as well.

VanceMack said:
So he CAN practice law?
Click to expand...
No he never reapplied for reinstatement as far as I know. I think he had to wait five years before he could do that. You are correct and Tucker is not. ALL of this stems from the Jones suit. It is seriously not even debatable.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
right
Click to expand...

Now that we have acertained that there were two settlemtns for two different cases, look at the statment I was actually responding to where someone erroneously claimed that the settlement of that case was a part of the Jones settlement, as well as my comments about justice being served in the Jones case and tell me again who the hacks in this discussion are. :lol:
 
Zaserac said:
I guess I was not clear enough. Let me try again.
Following Clinton's settlement with Jones federal prosecutors were going to prosecute him for actions stemming from the Jones case. Like I said before.

In order to avoid being federally prosecuted Clinton entered in his agreement that saved him from prosecution. Then rather than face disbarment he resigned. Simply put those are the facts. They still have not changed. I suppose it is possible he might not have been convicted. I think he knew that there was a pretty good chance he would not only be convicted of perjury but possibly obstruction of justice as well.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear, you were responding to a comment I made about justice being served in the jones case. When you bring up an entirely different case and portray it ads being a part of the settlement of the jones case as a way of rebutting my comment, you are not rebuitting what I have been saying, but instead perpetrating pure distortions of reality.

Whether or not you feel that justice was served in the subsequent case that had nothing to do with Jones has no bearing on the fact that Justice was indeed servd in th eJones case, wher eth eperjury occured, thu proving that the perjury did not have a detrimental effect on justic ebeing served. The key is that jones got exactly what she was asking for. To claim that justice was obstructed seems to be prety silly when the claimant got exactly what was requested, no?
 
Tucker Case said:
Now that we have acertained that there were two settlemtns for two different cases, look at the statment I was actually responding to where someone erroneously claimed that the settlement of that case was a part of the Jones settlement, as well as my comments about justice being served in the Jones case and tell me again who the hacks in this discussion are. :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh no...you arent a hack...you are a Haymarket...marked difference. You are as bad as Clinton spending 30 posts trying to obfuscate what the meaning of 'obvious' is. Your schtick is pretty boring, frankly, you do it on a pretty regular basis. Clinton lied under oath. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction. You dont think he was lying to obstruct. I do. Then you want to make it personal by calling me a liar. I think I pretty successfully avoided the personal response back...because again...you just arent that interesting.
 
VanceMack said:
Oh no...you arent a hack...you are a Haymarket...marked difference. You are as bad as Clinton spending 30 posts trying to obfuscate what the meaning of 'obvious' is. Your schtick is pretty boring, frankly, you do it on a pretty regular basis. Clinton lied under oath. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction. You dont think he was lying to obstruct. I do.
Click to expand...

You decided to claim that your opinion and guesses were OBVIOUSLY examples of something that was actually conjecture on your part.

You later admitted that you were guessing about why it was obstruction, which shows you knew for fact that your previous claim about it being obvious was not true, and therefore it was a lie.

Don't get all pissy if you get called on telling lies.

Then you want to make it personal by calling me a liar.
Click to expand...

This is another lie. I never once called you a liar.

When you understand the difference between the first sentence I just wrote and the second one, you'll understand that I've never once made it perosnal in this discussion.

Calling your claim a "lie", and the utterance of such a claim "lying" is very different form calling you a liar.

I think I pretty successfully avoided the personal response back...because again...you just arent that interesting.
Click to expand...

Sure, calling me haymarket and saying I'm not interesting isn't a personal response, but calling a lie a lie is making it personal and calling the utterance of lies "lying" is personal as well.

:roll:
 
Tucker Case said:
Let me be clear, you were responding to a comment I made about justice being served in the jones case. When you bring up an entirely different case and portray it ads being a part of the settlement of the jones case as a way of rebutting my comment, you are not rebuitting what I have been saying, but instead perpetrating pure distortions of reality.

Whether or not you feel that justice was served in the subsequent case that had nothing to do with Jones has no bearing on the fact that Justice was indeed servd in th eJones case, wher eth eperjury occured, thu proving that the perjury did not have a detrimental effect on justic ebeing served. The key is that jones got exactly what she was asking for. To claim that justice was obstructed seems to be prety silly when the claimant got exactly what was requested, no?
Click to expand...
The name calling certainly must have made you feel better. Meanwhile, I was not rebutting your comment. I was responding to the conversation. Which I did not realize had already gotten pissy. My bad. I can see how pointing out the fact that it was all to do with Jones case and using the phrase "stems from" blew the pressure corker for you. Good day.
 
Tucker Case said:
You decided to claim that your opinion and guesses were OBVIOUSLY examples of something that was actually conjecture on your part.

You later admitted that you were guessing about why it was obstruction, which shows you knew for fact that your previous claim about it being obvious was not true, and therefore it was a lie.

Don't get all pissy if you get called on telling lies.



This is another lie. I never once called you a liar.

When you understand the difference between the first sentence I just wrote and the second one, you'll understand that I've never once made it perosnal in this discussion.

Calling your claim a "lie", and the utterance of such a claim "lying" is very different form calling you a liar.



Sure, calling me haymarket and saying I'm not interesting isn't a personal response, but calling a lie a lie is making it personal and calling the utterance of lies "lying" is personal as well.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Precisely what I said...your arguments are sad and you are just...well...boring...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom