Bill Clinton on Supreme Court?

Cypress said:
yeah, I should have said a material matter pertaining to a criminal act.

If the prosecutor asks me what i had for breakfast, and I lie about having coffee and croissants, I'm in no legal jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Unless the allegations are that you stole and ate a ham and egg breafast that morning.
 
Cypress said:
yeah, I should have said a material matter pertaining to a criminal act.

If the prosecutor asks me what i had for breakfast, and I lie about having coffee and croissants, I'm in no legal jeopardy.
Click to expand...


It's really got nothing to do with criminal acts at all. You cannot lie about a material matter, criminal or otherwise.
 
Dungheap said:
It's really got nothing to do with criminal acts at all. You cannot lie about a material matter, criminal or otherwise.
Click to expand...
O jeebus! Are we really trying ONCE AGAIN to explain that what bill did was stupid, obstructionist and ill advised but NO PERJURY?!? Seems that once a year at least you have to come back and edumacate the Clintonhaters about Perjury. Then they tell you that you are an clinton apologist for not agreeing with them that it is perjury and you go into the difference between materiality and the fact that the federal rules of evidence would not have let Jones lawyers bring in the consentual affair between Clinton and Monica and therefore it was not material to the issue of sexual harrassment and then they tell you "Oh yeah but what about all the women that Clinton raped?" and you say he didn't and they show you reports written that bring up Juanita Rodrick and then I think what you should do is tell them that the Duke Lacrosse team ALSO GOT ACCUSED of rape and someone saying they were raped does not mean they were!
 
What a moronic idea, he's been disbarred for one, two, what a dumb idea... Here's a better one, go out in a lighting storm, and hold an iron rod up.
 
WRL said:
What a moronic idea, he's been disbarred for one, two, what a dumb idea... Here's a better one, go out in a lighting storm, and hold an iron rod up.
Click to expand...
While I agree that it is a really stupid idea, his being disbarred would not preclude him from serving on the Supreme Court. You don't even have to be a lawyer to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Matter of fact there are NO requirements to sit as a justice on the highest court in the land.
 
Damn...........

Socrtease said:
While I agree that it is a really stupid idea, his being disbarred would not preclude him from serving on the Supreme Court. You don't even have to be a lawyer to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Matter of fact there are NO requirements to sit as a justice on the highest court in the land.
Click to expand...



Ya mean the US Supreme court is nothing but...a high class 'Justice of the Peace'...I would laugh if it were not true...but ya are correct soco...not that this is bad...JP's are cool if they have 'Common Sense' I know this is a oxymoron in todays world!
 
Socrtease said:
While I agree that it is a really stupid idea, his being disbarred would not preclude him from serving on the Supreme Court. You don't even have to be a lawyer to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Matter of fact there are NO requirements to sit as a justice on the highest court in the land.
Click to expand...

I would find it quite distasteful if a President tried to appoint a disbarred lawyer to the highest court. But I'm sure I'd find most of what Hillery Clinton would do as distasteful.
 
Dungheap said:
Not quite. Perjury is lying under oath about a material matter. You can argue that the Lewinsky relationship was immaterial and thus not perjury to lie about it, but it's not nothing to do with criminality.
Click to expand...


He may not have committed perjury, but he most certainly lied under oath. No way does he ever make Scotus
 
Socrtease said:
O jeebus! Are we really trying ONCE AGAIN to explain that what bill did was stupid, obstructionist and ill advised but NO PERJURY?!? Seems that once a year at least you have to come back and edumacate the Clintonhaters about Perjury. Then they tell you that you are an clinton apologist for not agreeing with them that it is perjury and you go into the difference between materiality and the fact that the federal rules of evidence would not have let Jones lawyers bring in the consentual affair between Clinton and Monica and therefore it was not material to the issue of sexual harrassment and then they tell you "Oh yeah but what about all the women that Clinton raped?" and you say he didn't and they show you reports written that bring up Juanita Rodrick and then I think what you should do is tell them that the Duke Lacrosse team ALSO GOT ACCUSED of rape and someone saying they were raped does not mean they were!
Click to expand...

No.... go back and take a look at the thread order. I stated that Clinton lied under oath. Which he did. I did not say he was convicted of perjury, nor did I even bring it up. That was the spin from the left to try and apologize once again for his stupidity. That said, it did go down hill from there. But bottom line it was the Clinton apologists that started acting as if someone had spouted off about perjury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top