Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr spent 1490 days investigating President Clinton - from 1994-98 - and all he found was President Clinton may have lied about consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky, at a cost of over $50M to US taxpayers. Not one Republican asked for the investigation to end, not one Republican asked him to be removed, President Clinton never threatened to fire him.
Independent Counsel Robert Mueller has so far spent 299 days investigating President Trump, and has already secured two guilty pleas and four indictments at a cost of $6M to taxpayers. Republicans are in an uproar, have smeared the FBI, and have called for an end to the investigation since it's going 'nowhere'. Republicans also warn that T-rump has hinted he will fire Mueller just like he did Comey.
You can't make this up. And T-rump has his loyal supporters.
"Clinton may have lied about consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky"
First of all, it wasn't just a 'lie'. It was perjury. And there is no 'may' about it. Clinton admitted to perjury when he accepted a plea deal where his law license was suspended and he had to pay a $25,000 fine.
"Clinton may have lied"...that's the understatement of the millennium!!! LOL But which Clinton are you referring to? The two of them are neck and neck in the liar's derby.
Of course Bill and Hill survive endless investigations. They know where a lot of bodies are buried (literally!) and they get away with murder (literally!).
"T-rump has his loyal supporters"... and I am one of them! Every morning when I wake up and can say, "President Trump and not President Hildabeast" is a GOOD day. The icing on the cake is the fact that Hollywood and the liberal media are still in tears and crying into their pillows every night. Hope Madonna, Meryl Steep, Streisand and Ashley Judd are taking their meds so they don't lose it. Yeah, life is good.
"Every morning when I wake up and can say, "President Trump and not President Hildabeast" is a GOOD day. The icing on the cake is the fact that Hollywood and the liberal media are still in tears and crying into their pillows every night. Hope Madonna, Meryl Steep, Streisand and Ashley Judd are taking their meds so they don't lose it. Yeah, life is good."
Wow - what a sad, lonely, pathetic life you must lead. I don't envy you.
Hi Doggie doo Yeah... sad, lonely and pathetic in a world where Hillary goes on her "sad, lonely, pathetic" book tour and returns home to her cheating horndog husband (that is , if he ever IS at home).
Why in the world would I want your ENVY? Envy is bad. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. You'd know that if you ever studied your religion.
But I DO admit to a large dose of schadenfreude. I really am enjoying Hollywood's misery and the left in general going nuts!
Don't envy anyone. Just hope that someday medical science will find a cure for what ails leftards!
Hey pee-ster, nice to see you remember what you used to call me at IMDB See, I remember what I used called you too. But Doggie-doo is even better. Thanks for changing your user name. LOL
Guess if I am so "tiresome", you won't be responding to any of my posts. Darn it, it was so much fun to drive you nuts, ya just have to grow a sense of humor!!
Oh Doggie doo----Cite your sources! LOL When did I reveal a "sad, pathetic, lonely life" on IMDB ? i think you are just projecting your own sadness.
A dolly? Okay!! You are just too cute!!! I will point to my head because Hillary has given me a number of headaches over the years with her anger, lies and deceptions all delivered in that screeching Wicked Witch of the West voice of hers.
Gee, ever wonder that if YOU weren't so sad and lonely that you'd have something more to do than reply to everything that I post? Guess not. Lefties are not too big on introspection.
"When did I reveal a "sad, pathetic, lonely life" on IMDB ?"
The real question is - when did you not?
"Gee, ever wonder that if YOU weren't so sad and lonely that you'd have something more to do than reply to everything that I post?"
Ummmmm, you do realize you first responded to everything I've posted over the past few days? (Or should I have PM'd you with this info not to embarrass you further in public?)
You are giving me a headache! Only took you ten minutes, Doggy doo, to get back to me. Guess your busy social life has taken a sudden nose dive. LOL
Back to my request- cite your sources, unless of course you don't want to embarrass yourself with some of the dumba@@ comments you made in reply me on IMDB.
Embarrass me? You really think a tad highly of yourself, don't you? Are you sure the WHOLE world is watching how "clever" you can be on an internet site? Yikes! Although I am pleasantly surprised that you can spell PM! LOL
And no, I didn't respond to everything you posted. When IMDB gave us the finger, I did check out The View site back then. I saw you and a few of your IMDB pals christen the site with your nonsensical, angry, anti Trump rants. I restrained myself from posting there. I had some self control, figured I'd let you folks enjoy ranting to each other and congratulating yourselves on your cleverness.
I have however been posting on this board without the benefit of your pearls of wisdom! HO HO And well...be honest... YOU responded. I didn't force you to respond. But heck, if you are too proud to admit you enjoy calling me stupid and trying your Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnell, Kathy Griffin "best" to be clever and insulting, well who am I to argue?
We're obsessed with her because the bitch won't stop whining and complaining about losing, and blaming everyone and everything except for the real reason: She was a terrible candidate, and she's a miserable excuse for a human being.
And also because she and Obama, and Holder and Lynch and the whole vile Deep State have been constantly trying to sabotage President Trump's administration for over a year. And that is tantamount to treason in my book, and they should all be in orange jumpsuits.
LOL! Trump needs no help at all in sabotaging his administration or his first year in Office. No help at all - he's doing a damn fine job on his own. You can't even credit him for that? It's his only achievement.
That's bullshit, and you know it, doggie. Just keep crying and whining like a little girl, and while your're wasting your time doing that, he's accomplishing great things.
As to achievements, feast on these:
Confirmed a Conservative Supreme Court Judge
Oversaw the confirmation of 12 Conservative District Court Judges
Has kept many American companies who were thinking of leaving, in this country
Brought unemployment down to 4.1%, a 17 year low
Green-lighted the Keystone Pipeline
Stopped Obama's War on Coal
Dismantled Obama's "Clean Power Plan", a $993 billion act of economic self sabotage
Withdrew from the unfair Trans-Pacific Partnership
Dismantled Economy Damping Obama era Regulations
Withdrew from the bogus Paris Accords, which were not working
Continued to dismantle the economy killing Obamacare
Dismantled the bogus Net Neutrality
Got deadbeat NATO members cough up their fair share of money
Decertified old Dumbo Ear's terrible Iran Nuclear Deal
Has reduced illegal immigration by over 50%
Presided over continuing victories over ISIS
Passed the Largest Tax Cut Bill in U.S. history
Achieved a 4.5% rise in the fourth quarter economy. The best old Dumbo Ears could do
in EIGHT YEARS was 1.5%.
Inspired the DJIA average to SOAR from 18,000 under old Dumbo Ears, to 24,719.22
Secured the release of three UCLA basketball players from Communist China
How's that, doggie?
Of course I know you will be against most of these. As a liberal, you hate this country, and want the economy to wither so that the Feds can get more people dependent of the Government. This
will enable the Government to control every aspect of their lives, and force your Socialist Utopia
down their throats.
And you ain't seen nothin' yet! Wait until the tax cuts start working!
PS And keeping the Lame Stream Media and folks like you concentrating on their hatred for him
instead of trying to sabotage his accomplishments. It's like a guy toying with a cat with a laser pointer. He's a master at that, and it's so much fun to watch. You people are blinded by your hatred which is stoked daily by fake news from the LSM. As Rush says, the Democrat Party is the largest hate group in the world.
Thank You for that amusing post. And you got that list from Breitbart or FOX NEWS? Probably "FOX & FRIENDS"! Keep up the good work.
"Has kept many American companies who were thinking of leaving, in this country"
You mean like Carrier and the 'special deal' Guv Pence worked out with the Indiana Company in October 2016 in which he promised $7M in tax incentives and training grants? That company?
The one which laid off more than 500 people this year and another 275 will be laid off on January 11 (how nice they postponed that from Dec 22, huh?) as they move their coil production facility to Mexico - just like they said they would? Is that the company?
What difference does it make where I got the info? It's true and you just can't stand it because you're a moronic Libtard. Stop whining and crying, doggie. You're becoming boring.
You are the one going nuts. Get a soap-box and yell on a street corner the nonsense you spout here and see what that gets you. Give us a date when the World will end while you're at it.
Now why would I want to try and compete with Rachel Madcow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews and the rest of the loony left? There is NO ROOM on that soapbox. They have it covered.
Have no idea when the world will end. But I CAN give you the date when the world got better, November 6, 2016, the date that Trump beat Hillary's a@@.
"Nonsense"? Only the stupid call common sense nonsense, you need to stop revealing your true colors.
No. There are separate soapboxes for you nut-job types. and you are currently on one.
Blast away while the rest of us moderate thinkers shun you. You are so tiresome.
She really is going nuts. I'm telling you - I've dealt with this mess before. She spins out of control and starts her undecipherable rants about nonsense, and then throws in 'Hillary' or 'Bill Clinton' for good measure. She's totally whacked - but thank God, she's on the Trump side.
That's the new word of the day, "nuts"! Well you ought to know!
"You've dealt with this mess before". No you have been humiliated by "this mess" before. LOL
The only reason I am indecipherable to folks like you is because I use words longer than one syllable and I don't just spout the lefty talking points. It's not my fault if you can't follow a logical train of thought. But we all know your train jumped the tracks back at the Hillary station. And yeah, I'll bring up those two criminals whenever I want to.
YOU started a thread just yesterday about Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr, 1490 vs. 299. YOU bring him up, so why shouldn't I? I guess hypocrisy is your strong suit. In fact it is this very thread. You started it about your horndog hero. I can't believe you are so dumb that you forgot.
At first I thought 1490 was the collective I.Q. of all the demonstrators at the pink pussy hat rally after the election. Madonna must have led the way with a solid 12! 299? Is that Barbra Streisand's latest weight? She has been crying about her depression over the Trump victory and how she has been overeating.
And it's so hard for you to actually think. You have not responded to any of my questions except to resort to the usual lefty name calling. I guess insults are what passes for intelligence to you people.
You have nothing in your arsenal but name calling and sophomoric insults. Thank God, YOU are on the lefty side.
"299 days investigating President Trump = two secured guilty pleas and four indictments at a cost of $6M to taxpayers."
And none of that has anything to do with the purpose of the original investigation - looking for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. It's just a witch hunt by a team loaded with Democratic shills. The same shills who let Hillary off easy. Need proof? Michael Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI. But when the FBI questioned Hillary, they didn't even put her under oath. And there's no record of the interview.
"And none of that has anything to do with the purpose of the original investigation - looking for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. It's just a witch hunt by a team loaded with Democratic shills."
Take your dusty history book off the shelf, and turn to the chapter on the Clinton investigation which began in 1994 and ended in 1998, and tell us where it started and how it ended. HINT: It wasn't a four year investigation of Monica Lewinsky.
"The same shills who let Hillary off easy. Need proof? Michael Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI. But when the FBI questioned Hillary, they didn't even put her under oath. And there's no record of the interview."
No way Michael Flynn lied to the FBI - he's an "honorable man" according to T-rump, appointed to his position by T-rump, and T-rump told us over and over again "he only surrounds himself with the best". Are you saying T-rump picked a liar?
You would have to ask Comey why they didn't put her under oath, or why he publicly said they were re-investigating her emails just days before the election. T-rump was very happy with Comey in 2016. T-rump praised him throughout the campaign season. He was very happy with Comey right up until February, 2017 - that fateful day when he asked him to 'take it easy on Flynn because he's a good guy'.
Why did T-rump change? Why did he ask Comey to take it easy on a liar? Why did T-rump call Flynn a great guy? Why did T-rump say Flynn was one of the best people, as he only surrounds himself with the best people - 34 of them who either quit or got fired in his first 11 months?
I'll give you some time to answer those questions.....
No time needed. Trump obviously realized how corrupt Comey was, and took care of the problem. Democrats were calling for Comey to be fired, and when Trump obliged, the Dems suddenly started screaming about obstruction of justice.
Now tell me, what reason would the FBI have not to put Hillary under oath?
Their questioning obviously didn't require her being under oath.
Now tell me, what made T-rump realize Comey was corrupt? When he wouldn't pledge his loyalty to T-rump and 'go easy on Flynn' or when he publicly said he was re-investigating Hillary's emails days before the 2016 election?
"Their questioning obviously didn't require her being under oath."
Seriously? She was being accused of a federal crime, and that didn't require her to be under oath?
Wow. Just wow.
"Now tell me, what made T-rump realize Comey was corrupt?"
Probably when Comey made the decision not to prosecute Hillary. He's the FBI Director, not the Attorney General. It's not his job to decide which cases should be prosecuted.
Or it could've been when Comey admitted leaking information to a reporter.
Or it could've been when he found out Comey drafted the letter to exonerate Hillary months before the investigation was complete.
Or it could've been when Comey changed his description of Hillary's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."
"Seriously? She was being accused of a federal crime, and that didn't require her to be under oath?"
Wow. Just wowJared Kushner and Donnie Diapers have not been questioned under oath either, much to the dismay of the Dems. But that's the way the investigation has gone so far.
"Probably when Comey made the decision not to prosecute Hillary. He's the FBI Director, not the Attorney General. It's not his job to decide which cases should be prosecuted.
Or it could've been when Comey admitted leaking information to a reporter.
Or it could've been when he found out Comey drafted the letter to exonerate Hillary months before the investigation was complete.
Or it could've been when Comey changed his description of Hillary's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." "
Or probably when Comey would not pledge his loyalty to T-rump, and 'go easy on Flynn' and make the Russian investigation 'go away'. You might want to learn what 'obstruction of justice' is all about - you will be hearing a lot about that in the coming months.
"Jared Kushner and Donnie Diapers have not been questioned under oath either"
Please post the link showing that Kushner and Trump have been questioned by the FBI and it wasn't under oath.
"Or probably when Comey would not pledge his loyalty to T-rump, and 'go easy on Flynn' and make the Russian investigation 'go away'."
Like every libtard, just ignore the facts that don't agree with your clueless opinions. Hell, even the Democrats were calling for Comey's firing before Trump fired him.
A number of Democrats in Washington D.C. this morning are expressing outrage over President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. But it wasn't long ago that many of them called Comey unfit for public office, said they lacked confidence in his ability to lead the Bureau and called for his firing.
1. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
2. Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler
3. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann
4. Democratic National Committee
5. Former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
6. Think Progress (founded by John Podesta) Justice Editor Ian Millhiser
7. Liberal Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald
8. House Leader Nancy Pelosi
9. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
10. Former head of the Congressional Black Caucus G.K. Butterfield
So Trump fired him, and now the Dems are screaming "Obstruction of justice!"
Fucking morons.
"You might want to learn what 'obstruction of justice' is all about - you will be hearing a lot about that in the coming months."
Aaaand we're back to your masturbational fantasy. I'm seriously concerned for your mental health when we get to the point where the investigation is over and there's no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. I hope you don't get suicidal.
reply share
"And none of that has anything to do with the purpose of the original investigation - looking for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians"
LOL, yes it does. Why would Trump associates have lied about their contact and associations with Russian personnel if there was nothing to hide?
LOL, yes it does. Why would Trump associates have lied about their contact and associations with Russian personnel if there was nothing to hide?"
Why would Hillary lie about not having classified information on her private server? And why wasn't she put under oath by the FBI when questioned about it?
Because when the information was first on her server, it wasn't marked classified. The classification changed after the fact - and try as they may, the Republicans can't get her for any wrongdoing.
"First of all it wasn't just a 'lie'. It was perjury."
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.
What many don't understand about perjury is that it's not simply lying under oath, it's lying about something material to proceedings. Personally I think Bill Clinton is of sketchy moral character but I'm not sure lying about a consensual relationship with an adult woman truly amounts to perjury. Quite frankly I'm tired of hearing about the Clintons; Hillary lost and Trump incessantly bringing her up is bizarre no matter how you look at it. All that being said the comparison in the OP is rather interesting and does give a different perspective to this current investigation.
"Your opinion is meaningless. He was charged with perjury, and accepted a plea deal."
Well first of all this is an internet movie message board....I'd say all our opinions are largely meaningless lol
But if we want to get into legal technicalities here, Bill Clinton was actually found NOT GUILTY on the count of perjury by the senate (55 Not Guilty to 45 Guilty with a 2/3 majority necessary for conviction so it really wasn't even close to a conviction). Also after his presidential term was up, the deal he made that included the suspension of his law license was not an admission of guilt on a charge of perjury (was never even criminally indicted). I realize this may seem like splitting hairs but that's important because it's the same legal language maneuvering that would allow someone to claim they are making no admission of wrong doing when....let's say for example they paid $25 million dollars to settle a class-action fraud lawsuit for allegedly running a scam university.
Legalese sucks which is why our opinions actually do matter because we often have to read between the lines of judgments, settlements, and accusations to determine the truth.
Excellent post! But probably wasted on the T-rump supporters and Republicans here...
Legalese and truth does not matter to T-rump supporters or Republicans, as we have seen the past year. They believe in 'alternate facts' and 'Fake (aka FOX) news'. Whenever we post truth about T-rump they turn around and throw Bill and Hillary Clinton against the wall to see if they will stick this time.
"Excellent post! But probably wasted on the T-rump supporters and Republicans here..."
First, thanks for the compliment Dog (may I call you that?). And perhaps I'm wasting my time with that post but I don't think it's fair to lump all Trump supporters and Republicans into one boat. I get mad when someone makes a blanket statement about liberals (which I am one) so I just try to show the same respect I wish to receive personally.
I think the best any of us can do is just argue from a place of facts but do so in as respectful a manner as possible. Often the person you are arguing with won't show the same respect in return which is honestly why it's so important to resist the urge to return petty insults...because personal insults are just a crutch for someone who can't make a case on merit and facts and I think every person should strive to be better than that. I don't know if that will make a difference in the way anyone else sees the world but I know for sure that insulting them definitely won't make a difference.
Again, excellent post Markdown (may I call you that? LOL). Yes, call me dog.
Like you I'm a liberal as well (no surprise there). I understand what you're saying about addressing people in a respectful manner, but my only difference in belief is: I believe respect is something which is earned, on a person by person basis.
On these forums, I find 90% of those who have a difference of opinion with liberals do not earn that respect, and are treated accordingly. I can understand why they behave this way - they look to T-rump as their leader, and learn from him. If he can behave disrespectful to others (and to them it's a sign of power and prestige), so can they. And that attitude does not earn my respect at all, but allows me to treat them they way they treat others (and many of these forum members I have dealt with on other boards).
Got to love the semantical gymnastics liberals will go through to defend their heroes.
Clinton lied under oath, which is perjury. And he admitted to lying under oath when he took the plea deal, otherwise, why would he take it. You can spin it any way you want, but the truth is, he lied under oath.
"Got to love the semantical gymnastics liberals will go through to defend their heroes."
He's not a hero of mine, in fact in my original post I said I find him of shady moral character and plainly put, I don't like him. That doesn't mean I think what he did amounts to the legal definition of perjury which is not simply lying under oath. There's more to it than that which I've explained but you choose to ignore.
Let's look at the example of Mark Fuhrman who was a Los Angeles detective and a key figure in the trial of O.J. Simpson. He testified under oath that he hadn't used the N-word in the 10 years proceeding the trial which was a proven lie once damning tapes were released in which he spoke the word multiple times developing a screenplay with a writer. He later entered a no-contest (equivalent to a guilty plea) for perjury and was at that point a convicted felon. Yes he lied under oath but was the fact that he had spoken the N-word material to the Simpson case? In my opinion (which yeah I get it, it's meaningless) it was not material and what he did shouldn't have been considered perjury. To me it was a ridiculous leap to say that because he had spoken the N-word, he must've attempted to frame a rich and beloved celebrity. It was nonsense and it was the opinion of many legal minds that (conviction aside) this did not amount to perjury. Do I like Mark Fuhrman? No. Do I think he truly committed perjury? No.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether a consensual relationship with an adult intern is material or not. And if you really want to get into legal semantics she performed oral sex on him but they never had sexual intercourse which was also at the heart of whether or not Clinton actually even lied.
Gotta ask, if my opinion doesn't matter, why do you even bother responding?
"We'll have to agree to disagree on whether a consensual relationship with an adult intern is material or not."
You're free to disagree with Judge Wright all you want. It makes you look ridiculous, but you're free to do it.
"And if you really want to get into legal semantics she performed oral sex on him but they never had sexual intercourse which was also at the heart of whether or not Clinton actually even lied."
Now you're just being dishonest. Clinton denied having a 'sexual relationship' with Lewinsky. It wasn't specifically about sexual intercourse.
Try getting a blowjob from a woman, then explain to your wife that it wasn't a sexual relationship. Let us know how that goes.
"Gotta ask, if my opinion doesn't matter, why do you even bother responding? "
How am I being dishonest? I simply pointed out that they never had sexual intercourse. And it was that fact was at the heart of whether or not he actually lied and the arguments made were over the definition "sexual relations". That's why I said if you want to get into legal semantics, because that's what so much of the legal discussion in that case was about.
I don't care if you disagree or think my opinion is meaningless, but I haven't been dishonest about anything here.
No, I'm not trying to claim that. What I'm saying is that it was that very argument that was at the heart of this case. Which is why I started the sentence out with "If you really want to get into legal semantics..." because this issue of whether or not Bill Clinton believed that the term "sexual relations" referred only to intercourse was at the heart of the arguments being made. It's the clearest example of semantics imaginable.
You're absolutely right Mark - Starr was not clear on whether he was asking about sexual intercourse or not. It was confusing at the time, as others pointed out back then.
Serious question, if you believe Clinton accepting a deal to avoid the possibility of going to trial for perjury is an admission of guilt, would you also say that Trump paying $25 million to avoid going to court for fraud is also an admission of guilt?
It's not your everyday legal agreement. It's not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn't solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors). The most unusual aspect of the deal is that Clinton reached a civil resolution with a criminal prosecutor.
Are Plea Bargains made before or after indictment?
When a defense attorney negotiates for the defendant, does the prosecutor often make the plea bargain before he/she indicts the defendant? or after the indictment?
They usually happen post-indictment, but as attorney Jaggers mentioned, it could happen pre-indictment if the parties agree to waive indictment.
A negotiated plea agreement can be made at anytime. As a matter of fact, I have negotiated deals prior to a warrant being issued. It just depends on whether the prosecutor has all of the state's evidence prior to negotiating. Most prosecutor's want all police reports, scientific reports, etc. prior to making an educated offer to a defense attorney. There is no set process. It may be better if a negotiation occurs prior to indictment, because if a case is indicted as a felony, it is more difficult to get the felony reduced...
A plea bargain is not "often" made by the prosecutor before indictment, but it can occur.
So yeah, you're wrong. As is that article, which claims it wasn't a plea deal because he wasn't indicted.
reply share
"You seem to be claiming that Bill Clinton is a convicted felon for the charge of perjury which is simply not true."
It simply is true. He accepted a plea deal to avoid prosecution. Plea deals ALWAYS result in convictions. Perjury is a felony. There are people currently in jail for committing this crime.
I'm unsure how they are not comparable? They are both proceedings regarding alleged wrongdoing. In one accusations are brought by the state or government and the in the other accusations are brought by other individuals or businesses.
We have two cases where settlements were made to avoid going to court. Yes the penalties are different but I really don't understand why you refuse to admit parallels here.
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree.
So, Trump wouldn't be admitting 'guilt' by settling the case. And everyone knows those kinds of cases are settled sometimes because it's cheaper to settle than go through the court process.
reply share
A guilty or no contest plea entered as a judge-approved plea bargain results in a criminal conviction; the defendant’s guilt is established just as it would be after a trial. The conviction will show up on the defendant’s criminal record (rap sheet). And, the defendant loses any rights or privileges, such as the right to vote, that the defendant would lose if convicted after trial.
Fair enough. But this is specifically for plea-bargains that include a guilty or a no-contest plea (as I've pointed out that was not the case with the Clinton agreement...if it were he'd be a convicted felon which he is not). What I was referring to was the many cases where someone will plea to a lesser (possible misdemeanor charge) or just an agreement that the charge will be dismissed at a later date should the defendant complete some sort of rehabilitation program or community service.
"if it were he'd be a convicted felon which he is not"
All plea bargains result in convictions, and Clinton plea-bargained a felony crime. That makes him a convicted felon. Just because the media never refers to him as that, doesn't make it false.
"What I was referring to was the many cases where..."
Wow....just wow. It's irrelevant what the media refers to him as. What matters is legally whether he is or not and he isn't a convicted felon. Do you think Fox News or Breitbart wouldn't be referring to him as a convicted felon every time his name came up if that was the case? Come on man, I was enjoying this back and forth for a bit but you lost me on this one.
But there is no logic in what you're saying because you're ignoring simple facts. You're insisting that he is a convicted felon which isn't the case. This is my logic:
1) He didn't enter a guilty plea to any charge, including perjury.
2) He was not found guilty by judge or jury for perjury or any other charge.
3) He has no record of conviction.
That's my logic and it really is that simple, sorry. Semantic gymastics aside, facts are facts and he is not a convicted felon. If you can point me to a source that shows he was either A) found guilty by a judge or jury or B) entered a guilty plea, C) Has felony criminal record, I will reconsider my stance. Until then I don't have much else to add.
"1) He didn't enter a guilty plea to any charge, including perjury."
Of course he did. As part of the plea, Clinton acknowledging that he gave false answers in his Jones deposition. He was compelled to sign an "Agreed Order of Discipline" which states that he "knowingly" engaged in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
" 2) He was not found guilty by judge or jury for perjury or any other charge."
Prosecutors also accept plea bargains because they are evaluated in large part according to their conviction rates and all plea bargains result in a conviction because the defendant must plead guilty as part of the plea agreement.
"3) He has no record of conviction."
Accepting a plea bargain is a record of conviction.
reply share
"Of course he did. As part of the plea, Clinton acknowledging that he gave false answers in his Jones deposition. He was compelled to sign an "Agreed Order of Discipline" which states that he "knowingly" engaged in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." and "Accepting a plea bargain is a record of conviction."
This is where you're severely mistaken and it brings me back to what I said earlier about this technically not being a plea bargain. Because Clinton agreed to the suspension of his law license and fines, they never pursued any actual criminal charges (there's a reason they call him Slick Willy). Since no charges were filed, there is no guilty plea/conviction/etc.
This is a pretty good breakdown of the legal consequences suffered by Bill Clinton. A conviction of any sort is not amongst them. I don't expect you to take my word for it but please research it on your own because you don't seem to understand what a felony conviction actually entails.
"Because Clinton agreed to the suspension of his law license and fines, they never pursued any actual criminal charges"
Yes, it's called a plea bargain. They don't have to 'pursue criminal charges' because he pled guilty to them in exchange for a lesser sentence.
According to your logic, I can murder someone, and the judicial system would 'never pursue any actual criminal charges' if I agree to a plea bargain. It's ludicrous to look at it that way. The prosecutor accepts the plea bargain so they don't have to further pursue criminal charges. Because they've gotten their conviction.
"This is a pretty good breakdown of the legal consequences suffered by Bill Clinton."
Seriously? You're citing Snopes while I'm giving you links to actual legal resources. That's pretty funny.
If you're stooping to using Snopes, it's obvious you're having difficulty backing up your opinion here. And then you arrogantly claim that I don't seem to understand.
None of your legit legal sources have said anything about him being a convicted felon, now have they? None of them have mentioned him entering a guilty plea, now have they?
What in that Snopes breakdown is inaccurate exactly?
And I'm not arrogantly claiming you don't understand, I'm accurately claiming you don't understand. Please provide me any of your legit legal sources that say Bill Clinton plead guilty to a crime (which is an key aspect of any plea agreement). If you can do that and show that I'm wrong, I will honestly tell you that I'm wrong.
"None of your legit legal sources have said anything about him being a convicted felon, now have they? None of them have mentioned him entering a guilty plea, now have they?"
Not sure what so hard to understand about this. Clinton accepted a plea bargain from Ray, and the legal resources state that a plea bargain is ALWAYS a conviction.
Clinton committed perjury, admitted in a plea bargain to doing so, and in return received a reduced penalty of just having his law license suspended.
If this was any other person, you would accept that logic. But since it's Bill Clinton, you have twisted yourself in knots trying to deny it. Hell, you can't even admit that he committed perjury, when he admitted it himself.
Actually this is not true because as I've said more than once arleady I don't really like Bill Clinton. I would actually say the reverse is true and if it was about anyone other than someone you hate as much as you do Clinton, you would be able to admit that he is not a convicted felon.
"Agreed Order of Discipline" which states that he "knowingly" engaged in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
This is what you posted earlier. Why is this referred to as an "Agreed Order of Discipline" and not a Plea agreement? Also why is the term perjury not used if that's what he pleaded guilty to? Have you ever seen an actual court filing? I actually have and even though I doubt you'll believe anything I have to say, they are spelled out extremely clearly to leave no interpretation other than what is clearly spelled out (i.e. guilty plea/finding).
I don't have to tie myself in knots because deep down you know that if Bill Clinton was a convicted felon, you would be able to find that very easily. There is such wide-spread hate for Bill Clinton among many on the right that this would be sung at the top of their lungs. But you can't find this because it simply doesn't exist. Instead you are relying on your own deeply flawed interpretation of an "agreed order of discipline".
I'm done. You're obviously either unwilling or too stupid to understand the legal definitions I've posted from legal sources.
Keep on twisting that Clinton didn't commit perjury, when he admitted to it, and took a plea deal to lessen his punishment.
You're ignored.
I think you're putting me on ignore because you've been searching unsuccessfully for something confirming your false belief that Clinton pled guilty and is a convicted felon and unable to find that your frustration has boiled over.
I have a degree in criminal justice, worked a bit for a probation department and as a paralegal so I understand legal definitions.like I said earlier, I don't expect you to take my word for this but you should seek the answers elsewhere.
If Bill Clinton was a convicted felon, Sean Insanity and the rest of the chuckleheads at FAUX NEWS (and Brietbart) would remind us each and every day. But they don't because he's not - just Snaggy spreading more lies - err, "alternate facts".
And we wonder how Trump gets away with lying every day?
Doubt you'll get any questions from the Democrats around here. it will be more denials, obfuscations, and insults! Probably throw in "Faux News" for good measure!
"Clinton lied under oath. Was impeached and disbarred because of it.
Mueller has produced zero evidence of Russian collusion. They aren’t even investigating the time period before the election. Mueller = fail.
DemoKKKrata are a worthless, uninspiring party with zero ideas.
Any questions?"
No questions - just corrections.
Starr began his investigation on Clinton in 1994 which was known as "The Whitewater Investigation" in which they found NOTHING to pin on President Clinton, his wife or his administration. But rather than end the investigation when the came up with zero on WhiteWater, the dragged on the investigation for 4 years - coming up with nothing after more nothing as the taxpayer tab ran up to $50 million - where was the Republican outrage that the investigation was facing dead-end after dead-end and costing us money? Not one conviction or one guilty plea on anyone in his administration, nor Clinton himself. In the end they wrapped it up on Clinton lying under oath about a consensual extramarital affair he had in Office. $50m they voted to impeach him (Republicans had to show their voters something after a wasted four years and $50M), but he was never impeached.
In less than 300 days (that's less than a year for those who can't do the math - and WAY less than four years for the intellectually challenged) in an investigation on Russian interference in our election, it looks like Trump is probably going to be charged with Obstruction of Justice ("go easy on Flynn - he's a nice guy" when he now admits he knew Flynn lied to the FBI) at the very least.
So far, Mueller has 4 - count'em 4 - secured indictments, and 2 - count 'em 2 - GUILTY pleas from T-rump's administration of 'the best people hired'. And that's in less than 300 days at a mere cost of $6M. Give him three more years and $44M more rather than have your T-rump threaten to fire him, and smear him and his department every chance they get (something Clinton never ever did to Starr).
Another thing is that obstruction of justice must be something germane to the case at hand to be obstruction of justice, which Ckinton's lie about Monica Lewinsky was not. The Republicans have been dishonest in all their dealings in this country and with its people. Since Republicans have a habit of always accusing their opposition of doing things they are doing, I think it is about time to question the voting habits of Republicans and really take a close look at the election system. I don't think Americans can be so stupid so long as to keep these idiots in power.
As to the other stuff in your post, very good points, but childishly referring to Donald Trump as T-Rump borders on stupid. Why do people do this ... what, are you 9 years old or something?
I do it because T-rump has set the stage early on by calling everyone by a nickname - 'Crooked Hillary', 'Lil' Marco', 'Pocahantas', 'Sloppy Steve', etc. the list is endless. So I like to respect him with the same respect he shows others.
Childish? Absolutely. But on the same level as him.
I get why you do it ... if I could think of something insulting enough I'd probably give in to that urge as well, but T-rump is just stupid. I you cannot think of something that makes you look better than him, just can it.
Thanks for the advice, but I'll continue with what I've been doing. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves the same respect he shows others, and at the same level of maturity as well.