The Politics of Diversion!

Only a fucking blithering moron of the highest order or someone who is an unrepentant racist wouldn't accept the overwhelming evidence for reasonable doubt in the OJ criminal case.

Your input is irrelevant to this topic of debate...but what the hell...I'll play, mm is owned and too much of a buffoon to admit it....

Crime scene blood:

Blood drops were found alongside bloody shoe prints leading away from the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman; blood was found on a gate at the back of the murder scene condominium; blood from both places contained Simpson's genetic markers. Simpson had a cut on his left middle finger when interviewed by police the day after the killings.

Prosecution: one of the most important parts of the case, claiming it placed Simpson at the crime scene; said Simpson dripped blood after wounding his finger with a knife during the murders; said scientific controls and testing by different labs thwarted any possibility of contamination or tampering.

Defense: mounted vigorous counterattack, alleging samples were sloppily collected and poorly handled, rendering DNA results unreliable; raised possibility that blood was planted by someone who took it from a police crime lab vial that contained Simpson's blood and a blood preservative; most compelling evidence was bloodstains on paper wrapping that was supposed to be holding dry blood samples; wound on Simpson's left hand was only a minor one he suffered in his house - not enough to drip as much blood as prosecutors found - and that Simpson re-injured the finger when he cut it on a glass in a Chicago hotel room the morning after killings, before police interviewed him.
Bloody shoe prints:

The bloody shoe prints matched a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, a relatively rare Italian-made model. Simpson wears size 12 shoes.

Prosecution: tried to place Simpson at the murder scene by showing that Bloomingdale's in New York, where Simpson sometimes shopped, carried such shoes.

Defense: Thousands of people bought such shoes; noted that no murder shoes were ever recovered and that the prosecution had no evidence that Simpson ever purchased such shoes; raised the possibility that unexplained "imprints'' that didn't match the Bruno Magli sole also were at the crime scene.
Crime scene hairs and fibers:

Hairs found in a dark knit cap were similar to Simpson's hairs; fibers on a cap were similar to those in the carpeting of Simpson's Ford Bronco; dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman.

Prosecution: Evidence places Simpson at the crime scene; noted that a witness said Simpson wore a dark sweat suit the night of the murders.

Defense: Hairs mean nothing more than assailant may have been black, as is roughly 10 percent of Los Angeles' population; also pointed to hairs that appeared to contain no dandruff, while Simpson's hair sample had some dandruff; no dark blue sweat suit was ever found; evidence could have been cast about the scene when a detective unfurled a blanket from Ms. Simpson's home to cover her body.
Bloody gloves:

One dark, cashmere-lined Aris Light leather glove, size extra large, was found at the murder scene, another behind Simpson's guest house, near where Brian "Kato'' Kaelin heard bumps in the night. Ms. Simpson bought Simpson two pair of such gloves in 1990. DNA tests showed blood on glove found on Simpson's property appeared to contain genetic markers of Simpson and both victims; a long strand of blond hair similar to Ms. Simpson's also was found on that glove.

Prosecution: Simpson lost the left glove at his ex-wife's home during the struggle and, in a rush, inadvertently dropped the right glove while trying to hide it; explained that evidence gloves didn't fit Simpson in a courtroom demonstration because the gloves shrunk from being soaked in blood and Simpson had rubber gloves on underneath.

Defense: glove behind guest house was planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson; blood on glove may have been planted by police; gloated that evidence gloves didn't fit; hair analysis isn't sophisticated enough to be trusted.
Bloody socks:

Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.

Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.

Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.
Bloody Bronco:

Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.

Prosecution: said Simpson drove Bronco to and from crime scene.

Defense: challenged interpretation of DNA tests, particularly those suggesting a genetic match to Goldman in a mixture; noted that the genetic material of an unknown person was found in the steering wheel blood; suggested police planted some of the blood; elicited testimony that the Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized people while it sat in a police impound yard.
Timeline:

Murders occurred between 10:15 p.m. and 10:40 p.m., based on testimony from prosecution and defense witnesses who heard barking from the area of the crime scene. Ms. Simpson's blood-covered pet Akita was found shortly before 11 p.m.

Prosecution: Simpson lacked an alibi or even plausible story for what he was doing alone during this period; pointed to testimony of a neighbor who saw a vehicle similar to a Bronco racing away from the crime scene at 10:35 p.m.; suggested that Simpson would still have had time to make the approximately five-minute drive home in time for Kaelin to hear bumps behind guest house at about 10:40 p.m.; suggested that the shadowy figure seen by a waiting limousine driver slipping into Simpson's house just before 11 p.m. was Simpson returning from the murders.

Defense: Simpson didn't have enough time from when he was last seen by Kaelin about 9:40 p.m. to drive to Ms. Simpson's home, kill two people, hide bloody clothing and murder weapon, drive home, drop glove behind guest house and clean up before greeting the limo driver about 11 p.m.; told jurors during opening statements that Simpson was home practicing his golf swing at the hour of the murders.
Violent past:

Through 911 calls to police and testimony, prosecutors allege a history of Simpson hitting, degrading and stalking Ms. Simpson.

Prosecution: pointed to motive, showing Simpson was prone to jealous rages and capable of hurting his ex-wife; suggested Goldman died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Simpson may have seen him as a potential suitor.


Hows your evidence workin' for ya....???
 
Last edited:
Why not just answer the questions instead of tap dancing .....
we all know OJ was not guilty in the eyes of the law but the questions were:

Would you claim OJ not guilty if he confessed to murdering his wife ?

Is a rapist, not tried or convicted, by some magic, not a rapist ?

....... Did the rape not take place because no one was found guilty in court?
....... Obviously if the rape took place, some one is a rapist, trial or no trial...


Is a murderer, not tried or convicted, somehow no longer a murderer?

.......... Same as above...

I might add, is a perjurer not a perjurer because he gets away with it ?

........... Same as above....

You see, perjury, rape and murder are deeds, actions...and committing the actions is what makes one guilty....juries and courts are irrelevant ....

If you want to "tap-dance with words"....please continue to make as ass of yourself, maybe Mottley will assist you...

giving misleading testimony in a deposition is not synonymous with being found guilty of the crime of perjury. fact.

no tap dancing....

being guilty of a crime is a legal concept.

being guilty of sneaking an extra cookie from the cookie jar is a non legal concept.

What I have said all along is: BIll Clinton is NOT guilty of the crime of perjury. that is a fact.
 
giving misleading testimony in a deposition is not synonymous with being found guilty of the crime of perjury. fact.

no tap dancing....

being guilty of a crime is a legal concept.WRONG

being guilty of sneaking an extra cookie from the cookie jar is a non legal concept.

What I have said all along is: BIll Clinton is NOT guilty of the crime of perjury. that is a fact. A mis-statement...Clinton was "found' not guilty of the crime...thats true, irrelevant, but true.....Found not guilty and being in fact innocent are not the same.

As long as I'm schoolin' you, I might as well do it right...so;

Sorry Barney, but even Gomer will tell you, If you go to
http://www.uslegal.com/
and search for the legal definition of just the word "crime" or "guilt" see what you find...right...nothing....you see, those words are common English words and have no special meaning other that what an ordinary dictionary states....
This is as close as you'll get to a "legal definition"...

CRIME - A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor.

A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense

A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment

The omission or commission of an offense.

You'll notice, nowhere is it mentioned anything about the courtroom, trials, or jury findings.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now GUILT, GUILTY
Blameworthy; culpable; having committed a tort or crime; devoid of innocence.

An individual is guilty if he or she is responsible for a delinquency or a criminal or civil offense.

The state or condition of a person who has committed a crime, misdemeanor or offense.

You might notice here, that nowhere does it state that a trial must have taken place or a jury has reached a decision....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any more trouble with the definition of either word, please ask any 2nd or 3rd grader to help you.....


Perjury is a little different.....


Perjury, being a SPECIFIC crime certainly has a legal defintion....

Perjury is the crime of making a knowingly false statement which bears on the outcome of an official proceeding that is required to be testified to under oath. A statement is made under oath when 1) the statement was made on or pursuant to form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable, or 2) the statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he made the statement and intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was signed by an officer authorized to administer oaths.

An oath of truthfulness may be made to a notary public, court clerk or other official. False statements under oath made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) are subject to prosecution for perjury under various state and federal laws.

You might notice here again, that nowhere does it state that a trial must have taken place or a jury must have reached a decision....

Perjury is a ACT.....

To be guilty of an ACT, one must have committed the ACT....

Not be tried in a courtroom, not be judged by a jury....

I can keep repeating the lesson over and over for you as long it takes for you to understand these quit simple words....so you to will be able to use them in a sentence and impress your friends....

Clinton's confession.....

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

Now really Barney, the case should be closed, you've been PWNED fair and square, save some dignity and give it up...
 
you are wrong. Perjury is a crime. to be guilty of a crime, one must be found guilty of that crime by a court of law. period.

Did Clinton lie under oath? Of course. He admitted as much.

Is he GUILTY of the CRIME of perjury? no. he is not.

Did OJ kill his wife? almost certainly he did.

Is he guilty of the crime of murder. no. he is not.

go back to swabbing decks or mess cooking or whatever the fuck you did in the navy... cuz being an english teacher is way the fuck out of your league...
 
you are wrong. Perjury is a crime. to be guilty of a crime, one must be found guilty of that crime by a court of law. period.

Did Clinton lie under oath? Of course. He admitted as much.

Is he GUILTY of the CRIME of perjury? no. he is not.

Did OJ kill his wife? almost certainly he did.

Is he guilty of the crime of murder. no. he is not.

go back to swabbing decks or mess cooking or whatever the fuck you did in the navy... cuz being an english teacher is way the fuck out of your league...

Can't respond right now...I'm freekin' laughing too much....

OJ killed his wife but didn't commit murder? lol
Oh wait, he did, but he's not guilty...
But then, 'not guilty' means he didn't kill her...
You are such a fool...you're pathetic...
 
Can't respond right now...I'm freekin' laughing too much....

OJ killed his wife but didn't commit murder? lol
Oh wait, he did, but he's not guilty...
But then, 'not guilty' means he didn't kill her...
You are such a fool...you're pathetic...

again...your use of the English language is crude and sloppy... probably because you, yourself, are a crude and sloppy person.

Committing a crime and being guilty of a crime are two different things. "Not guilty" in OJ's case means that a jury of his peers found enough reasonable doubt that they could not agree to a finding of "guilty". "Not guilty" in Clinton's case means that no court of law ever made a finding either way on whether his misleading statements under oath rose to the level of materiality as to constitute guilt of the crime of perjury. Ergo, OJ is not guilty of the crime of murder and Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury. Those are facts.

As I said earlier, I recommend that you return to deck swabbing or holystoning or mess cooking or whatever the hell it was you did back in the Navy 45 years ago and abandon this incredibly foolhardy attempt at being a wordsmith.

And...do you use all these larger than normal fonts because you are old and your eyesight is failing? Here then...let me edit this post accordingly.:pke:
 
you are wrong. Perjury is a crime. to be guilty of a crime, one must be found guilty of that crime by a court of law. period.

Did Clinton lie under oath? Of course. He admitted as much.

Is he GUILTY of the CRIME of perjury? no. he is not.

Did OJ kill his wife? almost certainly he did.

Is he guilty of the crime of murder. no. he is not.

go back to swabbing decks or mess cooking or whatever the fuck you did in the navy... cuz being an english teacher is way the fuck out of your league...
You and I both know that in reality some people are "guilty as hell, free as a bird"...

Wasn't that what Ayers said when he was released because the cops went overboard in their investigation and some of the evidence was thrown out?

It is silly to suggest that a person, even somebody famous, may not have been guilty in reality yet not found guilty in a court. Sometimes, like the Ramseys, they may not even face a trial.
 
You and I both know that in reality some people are "guilty as hell, free as a bird"...

Wasn't that what Ayers said when he was released because the cops went overboard in their investigation and some of the evidence was thrown out?

It is silly to suggest that a person, even somebody famous, may not have been guilty in reality yet not found guilty in a court. Sometimes, like the Ramseys, they may not even face a trial.


combining the word "guilt" with a word which denotes a crime limits the definition of the word "guilt". It is possible, as I said, to be "guilty" of taking a cookie from your mom's cookie jar without a finding from a court of law...but one cannot say someone is "guilty" of an actual "crime" without such a finding. In our system of justice, everyone is presumed innocent of crimes until a court of law says otherwise. You can say that Clinton is guilty of not telling the truth during his deposition, but you cannot say he is guilty of the crime of perjury.

I like to use words with precision, and Damo, I suspect you do as well. Clearly, in bravo's case, no such preference for precision exists.

and, btw...weren't the Ramsey's recently exonerated by DNA?
 
combining the word "guilt" with a word which denotes a crime limits the definition of the word "guilt". It is possible, as I said, to be "guilty" of taking a cookie from your mom's cookie jar without a finding from a court of law...but one cannot say someone is "guilty" of an actual "crime" without such a finding. In our system of justice, everyone is presumed innocent of crimes until a court of law says otherwise. You can say that Clinton is guilty of not telling the truth during his deposition, but you cannot say he is guilty of the crime of perjury.

I like to use words with precision, and Damo, I suspect you do as well. Clearly, in bravo's case, no such preference for precision exists.

and, btw...weren't the Ramsey's recently exonerated by DNA?
Rubbish, we are all adults here and know there are different connotations. So long as people fully comprehend he was never convicted they aren't trying to "trick" anybody into believing he was. It is unrealistic to pretend that some people wouldn't believe he was guilty even sans conviction.

One can believe 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime and know that they were not convicted of it, usually either for political or money reasons, one can also believe that some person found guilty in court is actually innocent. During conversation they would say he was innocent, even though he was found guilty.
 
Rubbish, we are all adults here and know there are different connotations. So long as people fully comprehend he was never convicted they aren't trying to "trick" anybody into believing he was. It is unrealistic to pretend that some people wouldn't believe he was guilty even sans conviction.

One can believe 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime and know that they were not convicted of it, usually either for political or money reasons, one can also believe that some person found guilty in court is actually innocent. During conversation they would say he was innocent, even though he was found guilty.

you and I can both believe and acknowledge that Bill Clinton gave misleading false testimony in a depositon while under oath. We both can be disappointed by such behavior on the part of our President. We both can also agree that he is not guilty of the crime of perjury seeing as he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law... that is how American jurisprudence works.

And the only reason to discuss Clinton's testimony in his deposition is to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the right in continuing to make such a HUGE deal about that testimony... and their continued righteous justification for the entire Ken Starr witch hunt and impeachment proceedings that followed... while continuing to downplay the PROFOUNDLY negative impact of Team Bush misleading us into the war in Iraq.
 
you and I can both believe and acknowledge that Bill Clinton gave misleading false testimony in a depositon while under oath. We both can be disappointed by such behavior on the part of our President. We both can also agree that he is not guilty of the crime of perjury seeing as he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law... that is how American jurisprudence works.

And the only reason to discuss Clinton's testimony in his deposition is to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the right in continuing to make such a HUGE deal about that testimony... and their continued righteous justification for the entire Ken Starr witch hunt and impeachment proceedings that followed... while continuing to downplay the PROFOUNDLY negative impact of Team Bush misleading us into the war in Iraq.

Its funny that Clinton is not guilty of anything, because he was not found guilty of a crime by the courts.

And yet Bush is guilty of lying because he said it was certain, and there was a margin for error or a tiny modicum of doubt.



Odd standards.
 
Its funny that Clinton is not guilty of anything, because he was not found guilty of a crime by the courts.

And yet Bush is guilty of lying because he said it was certain, and there was a margin for error or a tiny modicum of doubt.



Odd standards.

Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury. He certainly lied. and he lied under oath. there is no question of that.

And...when team Bush repeatedly used the phrase "THERE IS NO DOUBT" regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's, that was, doubtlessly, a lie, since there always WAS a modicum of doubt that they refused to acknowledge.
 
Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury. He certainly lied. and he lied under oath. there is no question of that.

Then he has admitted guilt of perjury! No, he wasn't found guilty by a court for the crime of perjury, no one has claimed that he was. This is largely due to the fact that he was President of the United States, not because evidence to prosecute did not exist. But, he admitted guilt, so that is not in question. Susan Weber-Wright also found him in contempt of court. He was disbarred from practicing law because of his guilt in this.

Now Maine, you can sit here for weeks and weeks on end, claiming Bill Clinton was not guilty, but Bill himself, admitted guilt. That is pretty powerful evidence against your claim.

And the only reason to discuss Clinton's testimony in his deposition is to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the right in continuing to make such a HUGE deal about that testimony...blah blah blah blah blah!

No, let's be clear... the ONLY reason to interject this stupidity in THIS thread, is to DIVERT from the topic! Congratulations, instead of the board engaging in meaningful debate about how the Democrat party has adopted the strategy of diversion, you have diverted the thread off into a myopic and ignorant rant to bolster support for the stupidity that Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjuring himself, even after he admitted he perjured himself! It's yet another classic example of the original topic of this thread!
 
Then he has admitted guilt of perjury! No, he wasn't found guilty by a court for the crime of perjury, no one has claimed that he was. This is largely due to the fact that he was President of the United States, not because evidence to prosecute did not exist. But, he admitted guilt, so that is not in question. Susan Weber-Wright also found him in contempt of court. He was disbarred from practicing law because of his guilt in this.

Now Maine, you can sit here for weeks and weeks on end, claiming Bill Clinton was not guilty, but Bill himself, admitted guilt. That is pretty powerful evidence against your claim.



No, let's be clear... the ONLY reason to interject this stupidity in THIS thread, is to DIVERT from the topic! Congratulations, instead of the board engaging in meaningful debate about how the Democrat party has adopted the strategy of diversion, you have diverted the thread off into a myopic and ignorant rant to bolster support for the stupidity that Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjuring himself, even after he admitted he perjured himself! It's yet another classic example of the original topic of this thread!

Bill Clinton admitted to giving misleading testimony during a deposition. That is not synonymous with "admitting guilt" to the crime of perjury.

And... my only purpose in joining this thread was to point out, quite successfully I might add, that it is the height of hypocrisy and hilarity for YOU (Mr. One Third), of all people, to be complaining about the "politics of diversion".:pke:
 
Congratulations, instead of the board engaging in meaningful debate about how the Democrat party has adopted the strategy of diversion, you have diverted the thread off into a myopic and ignorant rant to bolster support for the stupidity that Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjuring himself, even after he admitted he perjured himself!


So you wanted this to be a discussion of the Dems diverting attention, but didn't want a discussion of the GOP diverting attention?
 
So you wanted this to be a discussion of the Dems diverting attention, but didn't want a discussion of the GOP diverting attention?

The accusation was made, that the GOP diverted attention with the Ken Starr investigations, which is untrue. That was not something done with the intention of diversion at all. It was an unprecedented challenge to American rule of law and jurisprudence. Ken Starr was not simply appointed by the GOP, it was a bipartisan Congressional committee who appointed Starr as an independent counsel. This doesn't happen when one party wants to simply divert attention, it happens when there is evidence of wrongdoing, which requires further investigation. If ANYONE is guilty of "diversion" here, it is Bill Clinton, for engaging in actions which prompted an independent counsel.

I want THIS to be a discussion of how the Democrats have consistently engaged in a strategy of diversion... yes! While you might be able to find an example of Republicans diverting attention from their policies, it doesn't negate the points I have made, nor does it conclude that "both parties do it!" It is far less prevalent in the GOP, and far more prevalent in the DNC.
 
Last edited:
Bill Clinton admitted to giving misleading testimony during a deposition. That is not synonymous with "admitting guilt" to the crime of perjury.

And... my only purpose in joining this thread was to point out, quite successfully I might add, that it is the height of hypocrisy and hilarity for YOU (Mr. One Third), of all people, to be complaining about the "politics of diversion".:pke:

Bill Clinton indeed admitted he was guilty of perjuring himself. That is precisely what it means to admit you gave misleading testimony during a deposition under oath! He did admit he was guilty of perjury, and what he did is certainly a crime. He was not found guilty by a court of this self-admitted crime, because he was a sitting president, and that is the ONLY reason he wasn't prosecuted and found guilty by a court of the crime. It doesn't negate the fact that he was indeed guilty, and admitted he was guilty.

The only thing you've been successful at in this thread, is showing how well you can parse words and redefine things to fit your agenda. I take that back... you've also proven how well you can skirt the board rules and continue to make personal private inferences about family members of other posters. In other words, you've thoroughly proven you are a sleaze.
 
The accusation was made, that the GOP diverted attention with the Ken Starr investigations, which is untrue. That was not something done with the intention of diversion at all. It was an unprecedented challenge to American rule of law and jurisprudence. Ken Starr was not simply appointed by the GOP, it was a bipartisan Congressional committee who appointed Starr as an independent counsel. This doesn't happen when one party wants to simply divert attention, it happens when there is evidence of wrongdoing, which requires further investigation. If ANYONE is guilty of "diversion" here, it is Bill Clinton, for engaging in actions which prompted an independent counsel.

I want THIS to be a discussion of how the Democrats have consistently engaged in a strategy of diversion... yes! While you might be able to find an example of Republicans diverting attention from their policies, but it doesn't negate the points I have made, nor does it conclude that "both parties do it!" It is far less prevalent in the GOP, and far more prevalent in the DNC.

WhatI see is you throwing a tantrum because you wanted it to be a debate with the Dems on the defensive answering all charges you threw at them.

Sorry it didn't work out like you planned. But thats pretty much how it goes.
 
Back
Top