Is Newt right?
- Thread starter Big Money
- Start date
No one can be this dumb:
perjury
Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
1.The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2.The breach of an oath or promise.
Perjury is considered a crime against justice, since lying under oath compromises the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. Other crimes against justice include Criminal Contempt of Court, Probation Violation, and tampering with evidence.
See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html#sthash.q5hhN8Mf.dpuf
So; this makes Clinton less guilty? NOT.
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, February 12) -- The Senate acquitted President Bill Clinton Friday of both articles of impeachment. The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50. Below is the roll call:
Democrats to a tee voted against impeachment for purely partisan political purposes.
Wrong again;
lie
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
Now unless you want to label all these people as liars as well; you have no case counselor:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
maineman
Banned
truth deflector:
you need to have more than a grade school understanding of the legal definition of the crime of perjury. Suffice it to say that Clinton's testimony did not fall under the definition.
Regarding Bush's statement. He clearly KNEW of the doubt that existed within his own intelligence services. He had read the NIE's, each of which was laden with caveats and qualifiers speaking highlight the less than certain nature of the intelligence surrounding Saddam's supposed stockpiles. When he said "THERE IS NO DOUBT", that wasn't an UNINTENTIONAL statement. It was a statement he knew to be false when he made it, and one that he made anyway in order to convince America of the absolute necessity of invading Iraq immediately. It was an intentional statement he knew to be false that was meant to deceive. period.
you need to have more than a grade school understanding of the legal definition of the crime of perjury. Suffice it to say that Clinton's testimony did not fall under the definition.
Regarding Bush's statement. He clearly KNEW of the doubt that existed within his own intelligence services. He had read the NIE's, each of which was laden with caveats and qualifiers speaking highlight the less than certain nature of the intelligence surrounding Saddam's supposed stockpiles. When he said "THERE IS NO DOUBT", that wasn't an UNINTENTIONAL statement. It was a statement he knew to be false when he made it, and one that he made anyway in order to convince America of the absolute necessity of invading Iraq immediately. It was an intentional statement he knew to be false that was meant to deceive. period.
maineman
Banned
and as to the other issue being bandied about here, in the legislative system, an "impeachment" is roughly equivalent to an indictment, not a conviction. The trial in the senate is the equivalent to the trial in a court of law where an indicted defendant is tried. Many times, indicted defendants are found "not guilty" by a jury of their peers, and that judgment must be unanimous in our legal system for a verdict other than "not guilty" to be rendered. In our system of government, the legislative "trial" does not require unanimity on the part of the senators sitting in judgment of the public official impeached (indicted) by the house. Rather than unanimity, only a 2/3rd's majority of senators are necessary to render a "guilty" verdict. At the conclusion of Clinton's trial in the senate, the house prosecutors fell way short of that mark. Ergo, Clinton was not removed from office, much like those multitudinous indicted defendants in criminal proceedings whose juries failed to reach a unanimous rendering of guilt. Again... I thought they taught this sort of shit in civics. They certainly did when I was in school, but that was a long time ago. It would appear that today's civics lessons are nowhere near as comprehensive.
Clinton lost his license to practice law and was levied a considerable fine for his perjury, imaginary as it was in your narrow mind.
Yeah, yeah, yeah....we've heard it all a hundred times.....its only NOT LYING when the Democrats say over and over "we have no doubt", "there is no doubt", and "if you like your plan, you
can keep it, period", which is equal to saying "there is not doubt" instead of "period".....
Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]
which we grownups understand to be an intelligence "estimate"....look it up if you're no quite sure what estimate means...and yes we know of the alternate view, but
this is the one he went with, this is the one he believed to be accurate, in his eyes, "there was no doubt". He certainly had intell from others nation to consider also.
Compared to you, that knew absolutely shit about the worldwide intell. he was getting AT THE TIME.
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
* Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
* Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
* Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
* If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.
* Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
o Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
o Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.
o All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
* In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.
We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
* An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
* Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
* The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.
We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
* We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
o Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.
o Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.
* Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
o Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.
* Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.
* Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km--perhaps as far as 300 km.
* Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. Homeland.
o An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.
o The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.
* Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.
We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.
* Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
* Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
* He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
* We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
* Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
* The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
* In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
A convenient fact, that the liberals seem to ignore, is that there was only 1 war with Iraq and that was the one that started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
A cease fire was begun, not an end to the war with a treaty, and after numerous times of Saddam violating that cease fire, Saddam suffered the consequences of his non-compliance.
So the lie that Bush LIED to start a war with Iraq is completely false and anyone who proposes such, is someone who has a severe case of ignorance.
maineman
Banned
All Bush would have had to say was, "in my mind I have no doubt..." He chose not to say that. He chose to lie instead. It is as if the yahoos on the right seem to believe that saying "I have no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting in concert with others when he assassinated JFK" is totally synonymous with saying THERE IS NO DOUBT that Lee Harvey Oswald acted along with others to assassinate JFK". The two statements do NOT mean the same thing, regardless of how many times the right tries to claim otherwise. to say "THERE IS NO DOUBT" is to make a statement old FACT. To say "I have no doubt" is to express an opinion. The latter cannot be a lie because it is just an opinion. The former CAN be a lie if the speaker KNEW of the existence of doubt - in this case, doubt within his own intelligence agency- and claimed that such doubt did not exist. It was a lie. Sorry.
maineman
Banned
and Nova...to be precise, Clinton lost his license for lying under oath....NOT for perjury. Perjury requires that the lie be material to the case in question. The case was about sexual harassment, and lying about consensual sex is not material to claims of sexual harassment. Clinton may have lied under oath about his consensual affair with Lewinsky, but he never committed "perjury".
Starr obtained evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on Clinton's conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Thus, the so-called Starr Report. Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice.
Substantiated.....thats the exact word the Democrats used....thats an admission in any language.
Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."
per·ju·ry
noun \ˈpər-jə-rē, ˈpərj-rē\
law : the crime of telling a lie in a court of law after promising to tell the truth
Full Definition of PERJURY
: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing
If lying under oath isn't material to the charge of "obstruction of justice", I'll fuck a Democrat.
Just because he was not convicted is irrelevant. A rapist that is found not guilty in court is still
a rapist....committing the act is whats relevant.
You can convince yourself of anything you need to, I don't care....sticking you head up your own ass won't change the facts and reality....
Clinton lied under oath, ie. committed perjury and obstructed justice....
He sure as hell isn't left! Now to the question of whether Newt is correct or not--absolutely not!
Robo
Verified User
The inconvenient fact for both Democrats & Republicans is Bush had no constitutional authority to start a fucking war. That power is constitutionally granted exclusively to ”The Congress” by the Constitution. Look as long and hard as you will, you’ll find no constitutional authority for the Congress to proxy their sworn duty and authority to Declare War to any President through a cowardly and unconstitutional Resolution which the majority of Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress voted for unconstitutionally.
Too stupid to warrant a response...
Clinton's guilt is a given, he confessed to the fact that he lied under oath....thats all that is relevant here, the fact that Congress did not want to impeach him is another
matter.
and....
Maybe you need to ask Scooter Libby about lying under oath, ie, perjury, fool...
Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of making false statements to federal investigators, perjury for lying to a federal grand jury, and obstruction of justice
We all realize that only Republicans are the only ones held liable while the Democrats get a pass.
