acknowledgeurma

As I said before, "He was found "in contempt of court", not the same process as guilty of a crime."

JW

He was still found guilty. They can't fine you if you're not found guilty. The Judge found him guilty of perjury. The fact that it was found civily doesn't detract from the dishonorable and criminal nature of his actions.

Our argument was over how the Republicans and the Democrats varied in their response to scumbag Presidents. I think I have made my point. Your recollections are now updated. Acceptance of the facts or not is your choice.

acknowledgeurma

If you read further in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

More specifically, the Independent Counsel concluded that President Clinton testified falsely on three counts under oath in Clinton v. Jones. However, Ray chose to decline criminal prosecution in favor of what the Principles of Federal Prosecution call "alternative sanctions". This included being impeached:

As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.

These seven sanctions, Ray reasoned, were "sufficient", and therefore he did not pursue further sanctions in a criminal proceeding.[6]

So as I said before, "He was found "in contempt of court", not the same process as guilty of a crime." Being found in contempt of court is not the same as being found "guilty" in a criminal proceeding.

JW

I didn't say it was the same process. In fact, I noted that the situation was handled civilly. That changes nothing. He was found guilty of lying to the court/jury, (perjury), was fined and sanctioned. You can't do that to an innocent man.

Once more, the argument regarded how the two parties handled the scumbags they elected President. To this day, Liberals won't accept that Bill Clinton was a perjurer and a liar. They still make excuses and grasp for technicalities. Had he not been President he would have been assigned a number in Leavenworth. The fact that he has yet to be condemned for what he was and is, says a great deal about the Democrats. Much more than about Clinton.

A side note: in spite of knowing what he is, Liberals still wanted to put his wife in the White House. If you are truly known by the company you keep, Bill's scumbag behavior says just as much about his wife. Remember Bill Clinton's words, 'When you elect me you get us both'. They make a perfect couple.

acknowledgeurma

It sounds to me that you want to ignore (possibly do away with?) the rule of law. You keep insisting that W.J.Clinton is guilty of perjury, but the sources you reference tell us that he was judged to be "in contempt of court" because he was judged to have given "intentionally false". In our system of law, this is not the same as being found "guilty of perjury". When he was tried (by the US Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice, he was found not guilty. When you keep insisting upon his guilt, it sounds to me like you want to do away with the rule of law. You may say that this is grasping at technicalities, but that is just what our system of law is: a structure of technicalities built up over hundreds of years, our legal tradition. Conservatives who supposedly value tradition much more than liberals, should be satisfied that our legal tradition has determined that W.J.Clinton is not guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice. As far as W.J.C. being a liar, I don't think there is a law against being a liar, otherwise we might all be convicts.

As for being "truly known by the company you keep", what does that say about Jesus?

JW

OK, one more time. The Jones v. Clinton trial and the impeachment of Bill Clinton are two separate issues. The findings in one have nothing to do with the other.

<<per·ju·ry
[ˈpərj(ə)rē]

NOUN
law
the offense of willfully telling an unt***h in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
"he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury"
synonyms: lying under oath · violation of an oath · giving false evidence/testimony · bearing false witness/testimony · forswearing oneself ·>> https://www.bing.com/search?q=perjury&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=040e7eca61f04fad9e04ddc857667028

<<Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.>>https://www.bing.com/search?q=felony+perjury&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=eb0a61dfdc494c76b44a390fcb6101de

Bill Clinton committed a felony in lying to the court. Lying to the court is a serious criminal offence. Had you or I done what Clinton did, we would have served time. It was only the fact that he was the President of the USA that persuaded the judge to handle his crime as a civil matter.

His impeachment is a whole separate issue. The fact that he was impeached but not convicted does not exonerate him from his previous criminal behavior in the Jones case. In that case, he was fined and sanctioned by the court for his behavior.

You will note that the definition of perjury states "the offense of willfully telling an unt***h in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation" which is exactly what Judge Susan Weber Wright charged him with, telling a deliberate falsehood.


It is important to set you straight on one other thing. You stated that "that is just what our system of law is: a structure of technicalities built up over hundreds of years, our legal tradition." NOTHING could be further from the t***h. Technicalities are faults in the writing of the law. They are ways lawyers have found to get around the intent of the law.

And finally, for the last time, the argument here is the manner in which Democrats and Republicans react to the scumbags in their midst. Nothing could be clearer to disclose that than the differences in the way Republicans reacted to Nixon and the way Democrats reacted to Clinton. Those differences permeate the history of the two parties and have since before Lincoln. Republicans rebuke those who fall short of the standards of behavior demanded by the office and Democrats celebrate the perverse (Barney Frank), the ludicrous (Maxine Waters) and yes, even the criminals (Bill and Hillary Clinton) in their midst.

As for Jesus, that is a subject for another time.

acknowledgeurma

"Had you or I done what Clinton did"', we would never have had a special prosecutor looking under every pebble to find something to justify impeachment.

His impeachment is NOT a whole separate issue. Contempt of court in a civil case (e.g., Jones v. Clinton) is generally not considered a crime. Judge Susan Weber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court (a judgement not subject to the same procedures as criminal contempt, where accused has certain rights not available to civil defendants). The Republican Congress used the special prosecutor's conclusions about Clinton's behavior in the Jones case as grounds for impeachment. The bipartisan decision of the US Senate found Clinton not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. For you to keep harping of Clinton being guilty of perjury is a lie.

In Nixon's case, a bipartisan US Senate would have found Nixon guilty of obstruction of justice. A group of respected Republican Senators told this to Nixon, giving him the chance and reason to resign. He took it.

[Irony Alert] Yes we all know how "Republicans rebuke those who fall short of the standards of behavior demanded by the office". Rebuking the perverse (Donald J. Trump), the ludicrous (Donald J. Trump) and yes, even the criminal (Donald J. Trump) in their midst.

And I would think that for a Christian, Jesus is a subject for all times.

JW

This will be my last response to you on this topic.

The special prosecutor isn't what caused Clinton to perjure himself. The Starr investigation started because of the numerous quasi-criminal and other shady actions of the Clinton cabal in Arkansas and after they moved into the White House. If you want to read about it, look here;
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

His impeachment and the Lewinsky scandal occurred entirely separately and only coincidentally became conjoined. It was one more Clinton act that demonstrated the man's unsavory character. The entire Clinton tenure was one scandal after the other.

As for Jesus, not everyone is a Christian. If you want to debate the topic of Jesus, I'm game but please know what you are talking about.

acknowledgeurma

I read the article you linked to, did you? Surely you noticed:
"On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to v**e "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats v**ed not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President."

When you keep insisting that perjured himself, you are lying, as determined by the bipartisan v**e of the US Senate.

And as for debating the topic of Jesus, who really knows what they're talking about?