What does my opinion of what "sexual relations" are and his committing perjury? Were you a cheerleader in high school?
Another disgraced Republican hypocrite
- Thread starter Rhodes101
- Start date
What does my opinion of what "sexual relations" are and his committing perjury? Were you a cheerleader in high school?
Rhodes101
Not a Member
The question of perjury depends on that definition.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
Myth: Clinton committed perjury.
Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.
Summary
Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.
Argument
Many believe that Clinton committed perjury – that is, he lied under oath – during the Paula Jones deposition (January 17, 1998) and the Grand Jury (August 17, 1998). However, the term "perjury" has been thrown around so loosely that it is important to go over its definition.
Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie. (1)
Definitions of lying
It is also important to clarifying what "lying" is, as opposed to "evading," "misleading," or "incomplete answers." In the following examples, let's assume the respondent knows the full truth. Here is an example of a lie:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of apples.
Here is an evasion:
Q. What color is white?
A. I think it’s six o’clock.
Here is a misleading answer:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s a reflection of all colors. (Scientifically true, but evoking images of red, blue and yellow in the questioner’s mind does not lead him to the answer he was seeking.)
And here is an incomplete answer:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of bunnies. (Generally true, but not all bunnies are white.)
Only the first example, the lie, is genuinely deceptive. Evasive, misleading and incomplete answers are all technically true.
The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.
In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.
Some might argue, "But the oath says ‘to tell the whole truth.’ An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth. You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was the book’s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely. Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for.
Problems with prosecuting Clinton for perjury
There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.
First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.
Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.
Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.
Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.
Perjury and legal definitions
Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it."
But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper.
And the more you think about it, the more ambiguous the term "sex" becomes. There is a vast spectrum between an innocent kiss good-by and sexual intercourse. Where do you draw the line? For men who grew up in the 50s and 60s, a common analogy was the baseball diamond: the challenge was to get to first base, second base, third base, and then a home run. No one considered first base to be sex, but fourth base was clearly sex. And what about the differences between fondling, light petting, heavy petting, and sexual intercourse? Or a light hug, a prolonged hug, a romantic embrace and a passionate embrace? Or a platonic massage, a full-body massage and a sexual massage? If sex involves contact with the erogenous zones, then what about people with erogenous zones in unusual places, like their feet, earlobes or the back of their shoulders? Must clothes be on or off? Is lap-dancing "sex"? Is phone sex "sex"? Can you have sex with someone a thousand miles away, even though that person is arousing you? What about passionate encounters that don’t result in orgasm? What about unintentional encounters that do?
The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully.
The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.
Many critics have exploded with rage over this, accusing the president of perjury. Oral sex is obviously sex, they claim. However, their argument is based on the common-sense definition of sex, which both teams of lawyers explicitly rejected. They agreed to a legal definition instead. One cannot simultaneously reject a common-sense definition of sex and then use it to disparage Clinton’s answer.
Other critics point to the illogical implications of Clinton’s answer, namely, that Ms. Lewinsky would have been having sex with him, but not he with her. This would indeed be impossible in the real world of common sense, but it would not be impossible in the theoretical world of legal definitions. (Although such a paradox implies the definition was badly crafted.) Again, it is unfair to judge Clinton’s answers by any other standard than the one he agreed to, and that standard was a legal definition.
Examination of specific perjury claims
The links below examine specific claims of Clinton's perjury. Before delving into these accusations, a quick background is necessary. Clinton is accused of perjury on two occasions:
1. The Paula Jones deposition on January 17, 1998.
2. Starr's Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998.
Here is the background to these two events:
In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment.
Myth: Clinton committed perjury
Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.
Summary
Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.
Argument
Many believe that Clinton committed perjury – that is, he lied under oath – during the Paula Jones deposition (January 17, 1998) and the Grand Jury (August 17, 1998). However, the term "perjury" has been thrown around so loosely that it is important to go over its definition.
Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie. (1)
Definitions of lying
It is also important to clarifying what "lying" is, as opposed to "evading," "misleading," or "incomplete answers." In the following examples, let's assume the respondent knows the full truth. Here is an example of a lie:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of apples.
Here is an evasion:
Q. What color is white?
A. I think it’s six o’clock.
Here is a misleading answer:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s a reflection of all colors. (Scientifically true, but evoking images of red, blue and yellow in the questioner’s mind does not lead him to the answer he was seeking.)
And here is an incomplete answer:
Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of bunnies. (Generally true, but not all bunnies are white.)
Only the first example, the lie, is genuinely deceptive. Evasive, misleading and incomplete answers are all technically true.
The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.
In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.
Some might argue, "But the oath says ‘to tell the whole truth.’ An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth. You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was the book’s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely. Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for.
Problems with prosecuting Clinton for perjury
There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.
First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.
Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.
Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.
Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.
Perjury and legal definitions
Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it."
But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper.
And the more you think about it, the more ambiguous the term "sex" becomes. There is a vast spectrum between an innocent kiss good-by and sexual intercourse. Where do you draw the line? For men who grew up in the 50s and 60s, a common analogy was the baseball diamond: the challenge was to get to first base, second base, third base, and then a home run. No one considered first base to be sex, but fourth base was clearly sex. And what about the differences between fondling, light petting, heavy petting, and sexual intercourse? Or a light hug, a prolonged hug, a romantic embrace and a passionate embrace? Or a platonic massage, a full-body massage and a sexual massage? If sex involves contact with the erogenous zones, then what about people with erogenous zones in unusual places, like their feet, earlobes or the back of their shoulders? Must clothes be on or off? Is lap-dancing "sex"? Is phone sex "sex"? Can you have sex with someone a thousand miles away, even though that person is arousing you? What about passionate encounters that don’t result in orgasm? What about unintentional encounters that do?
The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully.
The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.
Many critics have exploded with rage over this, accusing the president of perjury. Oral sex is obviously sex, they claim. However, their argument is based on the common-sense definition of sex, which both teams of lawyers explicitly rejected. They agreed to a legal definition instead. One cannot simultaneously reject a common-sense definition of sex and then use it to disparage Clinton’s answer.
Other critics point to the illogical implications of Clinton’s answer, namely, that Ms. Lewinsky would have been having sex with him, but not he with her. This would indeed be impossible in the real world of common sense, but it would not be impossible in the theoretical world of legal definitions. (Although such a paradox implies the definition was badly crafted.) Again, it is unfair to judge Clinton’s answers by any other standard than the one he agreed to, and that standard was a legal definition.
Examination of specific perjury claims
The links below examine specific claims of Clinton's perjury. Before delving into these accusations, a quick background is necessary. Clinton is accused of perjury on two occasions:
1. The Paula Jones deposition on January 17, 1998.
2. Starr's Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998.
Here is the background to these two events:
In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment.
Myth: Clinton committed perjury
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
It's only perjury if you get caught....
Last edited:
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Besides.....
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
sure thing...you in?
That's just some lame goober trying to rationalize that Clinton didn't commit perjury, when he in fact did, and when the Starr Report proved, in fact, that he did. It also proved obstruction of justice. Those are the only two things the $70 million investigation proved, which is pathetic, but they were proven, just the same.
One thing that I find truly hilarious, is the statement, "In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper." The reason it's funny is, the survey off 600 college students, which is a famous one (by Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch and was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association), was done after the Clinton impeachment hearings, and almost to a person the students stated that if it's not sex to the President, then it's not sex.
Clinton's illuminating redefinition of what sex is had an impact on more than just college students, too. In a really disturbing development, high school and middle school aged kids were gathering after school and having all kinds of wild sex parties, that just so happens didn't include sexual intercourse. But everything else was up for grabs, so to speak. Their justification was Clinton. He redefined sex, and he made it OK to lie, and the kids ran with it.
How many people remember that after the impeachment hearings, a federal judge cited Bill Clinton for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey the judge's repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones lawsuit? 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." He was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the case was referred to the Arkansas State Supreme Court for disciplinary action. As part of a deal, one day before he left the Office of President of the United States, he paid the fine and agreed to a 5-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and was forced to retire from the US Supreme Court Bar.
There are several kinds of truths that can be found in a courtroom. If you have $100 in your wallet, and I ask you how much money you have in your wallet, and you answer $10, that answer is a literal truth (or a "legal truth" as noted at the beginning of the goober's rationalization). But it's misleading and most people would consider it a lie, since the question implicitly implies that I want to know the full amount you have in your wallet. If I ask you if you have any money in your wallet, and you answer $10, then while misleading, it's really a lie, since the question didn't imply any amount. If I ask you if you have $10 in your wallet, and you have $100 in there, and you say yes, you do have $10, that's not a lie, either. This comes from the Supreme Court case ofBronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 353 (1973), where telling the literal truth, even if it misleads, will get you off the perjury hook most of the time. And you can bet Clinton was well aware of the Bronston case.
But in Clinton's situation, he used too many, "I don't recalls," which can get you into some real trouble if it is later determined that you do, in fact, recall. And it did for Clinton. He said he didn't recall if he and Lewinski were ever alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and the kitchen, which is a secluded, secure hallway. Later in the Grand Jury testimony, he admitted to some 10-15 times, and that much of the activity between them took place on the couch in that hallway.
For his Grand Jury deposition, the Court used a very clinical, declaratory definition of "sexual relations", and Clinton twisted it to mean something other than what was intended, but stayed within the literal truth. The definition was,
For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes
(1) contact with the genitalia,
, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person…
"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Clinton took that to mean that whoever is being deposed would have to be the one who is engaging in sexual relations, and that since he was the one being deposed, and since his hummer resulted in him making contact with her lips, which isn't on the list, then he was able to "truthfully" state that he did not have sexual relations with her, but it was instead she who had the sexual relations with him. It's a literal truth, but it's a load of literal crap and everyone in American knows it, including college, high school and middle school kids.
He stood firmly behind he Bronston literal truth defense when it suited him, admitted as little as possible, and deliberately mislead his questioners by using the "normal conversational" truth when it suited him to do so. The fact that the whole mess was purely political, even down to party line votes on the Congressional verdict of impeachment, and had nothing whatsoever to do with his performance as the President (not to mention a bazillion backroom deals), is what got him the not-guilty verdict in the impeachment hearing.
He may or may not have committed perjury, but one thing is for certain, he mislead, obfuscated and lied under oath. It just wasn't necessarily perjury. I know very few people who will say that Clinton committed perjury, but I know a lot who will say that he lied under oath, because he did. And that's not a myth.
One thing that I find truly hilarious, is the statement, "In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper." The reason it's funny is, the survey off 600 college students, which is a famous one (by Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch and was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association), was done after the Clinton impeachment hearings, and almost to a person the students stated that if it's not sex to the President, then it's not sex.
Clinton's illuminating redefinition of what sex is had an impact on more than just college students, too. In a really disturbing development, high school and middle school aged kids were gathering after school and having all kinds of wild sex parties, that just so happens didn't include sexual intercourse. But everything else was up for grabs, so to speak. Their justification was Clinton. He redefined sex, and he made it OK to lie, and the kids ran with it.
How many people remember that after the impeachment hearings, a federal judge cited Bill Clinton for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey the judge's repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones lawsuit? 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." He was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the case was referred to the Arkansas State Supreme Court for disciplinary action. As part of a deal, one day before he left the Office of President of the United States, he paid the fine and agreed to a 5-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and was forced to retire from the US Supreme Court Bar.
There are several kinds of truths that can be found in a courtroom. If you have $100 in your wallet, and I ask you how much money you have in your wallet, and you answer $10, that answer is a literal truth (or a "legal truth" as noted at the beginning of the goober's rationalization). But it's misleading and most people would consider it a lie, since the question implicitly implies that I want to know the full amount you have in your wallet. If I ask you if you have any money in your wallet, and you answer $10, then while misleading, it's really a lie, since the question didn't imply any amount. If I ask you if you have $10 in your wallet, and you have $100 in there, and you say yes, you do have $10, that's not a lie, either. This comes from the Supreme Court case ofBronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 353 (1973), where telling the literal truth, even if it misleads, will get you off the perjury hook most of the time. And you can bet Clinton was well aware of the Bronston case.
But in Clinton's situation, he used too many, "I don't recalls," which can get you into some real trouble if it is later determined that you do, in fact, recall. And it did for Clinton. He said he didn't recall if he and Lewinski were ever alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and the kitchen, which is a secluded, secure hallway. Later in the Grand Jury testimony, he admitted to some 10-15 times, and that much of the activity between them took place on the couch in that hallway.
For his Grand Jury deposition, the Court used a very clinical, declaratory definition of "sexual relations", and Clinton twisted it to mean something other than what was intended, but stayed within the literal truth. The definition was,
For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes
(1) contact with the genitalia,
, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person…"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Clinton took that to mean that whoever is being deposed would have to be the one who is engaging in sexual relations, and that since he was the one being deposed, and since his hummer resulted in him making contact with her lips, which isn't on the list, then he was able to "truthfully" state that he did not have sexual relations with her, but it was instead she who had the sexual relations with him. It's a literal truth, but it's a load of literal crap and everyone in American knows it, including college, high school and middle school kids.
He stood firmly behind he Bronston literal truth defense when it suited him, admitted as little as possible, and deliberately mislead his questioners by using the "normal conversational" truth when it suited him to do so. The fact that the whole mess was purely political, even down to party line votes on the Congressional verdict of impeachment, and had nothing whatsoever to do with his performance as the President (not to mention a bazillion backroom deals), is what got him the not-guilty verdict in the impeachment hearing.
He may or may not have committed perjury, but one thing is for certain, he mislead, obfuscated and lied under oath. It just wasn't necessarily perjury. I know very few people who will say that Clinton committed perjury, but I know a lot who will say that he lied under oath, because he did. And that's not a myth.
Clinton is without a doubt a sleazy person. I cannot fathom admiring a man who is more or less devoid of character. To my way of thinking that only someone of similar character would do so. Could someone please explain were that assesment is wrong?
Rhodes101
Not a Member
I would not try and guess what kind of sex life Bill and Hillary had. I do know that for most men, if there's no supper at home you will go out to eat. It would probably be best to just divorce in that situation but many couples try and keep it together for the children. With a high profile divorce that may have also played a part in their decision to stay together. The sex life for Bill may have been cut off due to previous liasons, I don't know the answers to any of these questions.
I also do not idolize Bill Clinton's private life, I do however give him the utmost respect for a fantastic two terms as commander in chief, all while being hounded relentlessly by the GOP with Starr as their hitman.
I also do not idolize Bill Clinton's private life, I do however give him the utmost respect for a fantastic two terms as commander in chief, all while being hounded relentlessly by the GOP with Starr as their hitman.
A person who is unable to uphold oaths is not a reliable person, no matter what the reason. I don't believe that you are qualified to speak for most men either. Men of character react different than men of little or suspect character, like Clinton.
As for his performance as CIC I find it very hard to believe that you can give REAL examples of how he did such a good job in that role. Skip the politcal stuff, means NOTHING to me. CIC, that role, ONLY. Please explain, using the real life examples of what you mean.
Good post by the way, liked it.
Last edited:
Rhodes101
Not a Member
Maybe in hindsight presidency would have been a better choice than CIC. Compared to Georgie though he was brilliant at keeping our soldiers alive and out of harms way. As far as his accomplishments this list is far better than anything that I could create.
The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
"Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union. Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union."
Only partially true. The work on those treaties was started during the Reagan administration, continued during Bush I and only finished during Clinton.
"Maybe in hindsight presidency would have been a better choice than CIC. Compared to Georgie though he was brilliant at keeping our soldiers alive and out of harms way. As far as his accomplishments this list is far better than anything that I could create."
Not even close to true. Clinton's policies and those of his administration lead directly to the intelligence problems that allowed the attacks on 9/11 to be successful.
His closing of 3 particular intell sites, the 3 primary sites that were used for counter-terrorism, was crippling to the efforts to stop such attacks. I was stationed at the one he closed in North Carolina, that was the job I was doing at the time.
Policies enacted by members of his administration prevented the flow of valuable information between intelligence agencies which might have allowed analysts to see those attacks coming and they might have been prevented. It is unclear why this was done but I am of the opinion that is was due to a total lack of understanding of the problems we were facing at the time. I know for a fact that Clinton ignored not only counsel given him by career intelligence people but also counsel given by his own advisers.
George II did not start any wars as so many in the press or Clinton cheerleaders like to say. To say so is a total lack of understanding of the entire middle east problem. It ignores the history that lead to our further involvement. You have to go back at least 100 years to follow the events that led to Bush II making the moves that he did. Not understanding history and only playing politics is was leads to a continuation of the situation. Every president since Wilson and beyond misplayed that region and it only came to a head after Clinton left office. I my opinion, based on my experience, the job that Clinton did as CIC was a total failure.
As to all of the rest, that has nothing to do with his performance as CIC, which was the question.
The president only does what congress allows him. He did not have both houses of congress for his entire two terms. Much of what was done during his two terms was due to a congress that worked a little better together. What I do give him credit for was his ability to talk. He was able to get opposing sides a bit closer together. Even I have to admit, he is a talker.
Only partially true. The work on those treaties was started during the Reagan administration, continued during Bush I and only finished during Clinton.
"Maybe in hindsight presidency would have been a better choice than CIC. Compared to Georgie though he was brilliant at keeping our soldiers alive and out of harms way. As far as his accomplishments this list is far better than anything that I could create."
Not even close to true. Clinton's policies and those of his administration lead directly to the intelligence problems that allowed the attacks on 9/11 to be successful.
His closing of 3 particular intell sites, the 3 primary sites that were used for counter-terrorism, was crippling to the efforts to stop such attacks. I was stationed at the one he closed in North Carolina, that was the job I was doing at the time.
Policies enacted by members of his administration prevented the flow of valuable information between intelligence agencies which might have allowed analysts to see those attacks coming and they might have been prevented. It is unclear why this was done but I am of the opinion that is was due to a total lack of understanding of the problems we were facing at the time. I know for a fact that Clinton ignored not only counsel given him by career intelligence people but also counsel given by his own advisers.
George II did not start any wars as so many in the press or Clinton cheerleaders like to say. To say so is a total lack of understanding of the entire middle east problem. It ignores the history that lead to our further involvement. You have to go back at least 100 years to follow the events that led to Bush II making the moves that he did. Not understanding history and only playing politics is was leads to a continuation of the situation. Every president since Wilson and beyond misplayed that region and it only came to a head after Clinton left office. I my opinion, based on my experience, the job that Clinton did as CIC was a total failure.
As to all of the rest, that has nothing to do with his performance as CIC, which was the question.
The president only does what congress allows him. He did not have both houses of congress for his entire two terms. Much of what was done during his two terms was due to a congress that worked a little better together. What I do give him credit for was his ability to talk. He was able to get opposing sides a bit closer together. Even I have to admit, he is a talker.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
That's just some lame goober trying to rationalize that Clinton didn't commit perjury, when he in fact did, and when the Starr Report proved, in fact, that he did. It also proved obstruction of justice. Those are the only two things the $70 million investigation proved, which is pathetic, but they were proven, just the same.
One thing that I find truly hilarious, is the statement, "In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper." The reason it's funny is, the survey off 600 college students, which is a famous one (by Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch and was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association), was done after the Clinton impeachment hearings, and almost to a person the students stated that if it's not sex to the President, then it's not sex.
Clinton's illuminating redefinition of what sex is had an impact on more than just college students, too. In a really disturbing development, high school and middle school aged kids were gathering after school and having all kinds of wild sex parties, that just so happens didn't include sexual intercourse. But everything else was up for grabs, so to speak. Their justification was Clinton. He redefined sex, and he made it OK to lie, and the kids ran with it.
How many people remember that after the impeachment hearings, a federal judge cited Bill Clinton for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey the judge's repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones lawsuit? 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." He was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the case was referred to the Arkansas State Supreme Court for disciplinary action. As part of a deal, one day before he left the Office of President of the United States, he paid the fine and agreed to a 5-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and was forced to retire from the US Supreme Court Bar.
There are several kinds of truths that can be found in a courtroom. If you have $100 in your wallet, and I ask you how much money you have in your wallet, and you answer $10, that answer is a literal truth (or a "legal truth" as noted at the beginning of the goober's rationalization). But it's misleading and most people would consider it a lie, since the question implicitly implies that I want to know the full amount you have in your wallet. If I ask you if you have any money in your wallet, and you answer $10, then while misleading, it's really a lie, since the question didn't imply any amount. If I ask you if you have $10 in your wallet, and you have $100 in there, and you say yes, you do have $10, that's not a lie, either. This comes from the Supreme Court case ofBronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 353 (1973), where telling the literal truth, even if it misleads, will get you off the perjury hook most of the time. And you can bet Clinton was well aware of the Bronston case.
But in Clinton's situation, he used too many, "I don't recalls," which can get you into some real trouble if it is later determined that you do, in fact, recall. And it did for Clinton. He said he didn't recall if he and Lewinski were ever alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and the kitchen, which is a secluded, secure hallway. Later in the Grand Jury testimony, he admitted to some 10-15 times, and that much of the activity between them took place on the couch in that hallway.
For his Grand Jury deposition, the Court used a very clinical, declaratory definition of "sexual relations", and Clinton twisted it to mean something other than what was intended, but stayed within the literal truth. The definition was,
For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes
(1) contact with the genitalia,
"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Clinton took that to mean that whoever is being deposed would have to be the one who is engaging in sexual relations, and that since he was the one being deposed, and since his hummer resulted in him making contact with her lips, which isn't on the list, then he was able to "truthfully" state that he did not have sexual relations with her, but it was instead she who had the sexual relations with him. It's a literal truth, but it's a load of literal crap and everyone in American knows it, including college, high school and middle school kids.
He stood firmly behind he Bronston literal truth defense when it suited him, admitted as little as possible, and deliberately mislead his questioners by using the "normal conversational" truth when it suited him to do so. The fact that the whole mess was purely political, even down to party line votes on the Congressional verdict of impeachment, and had nothing whatsoever to do with his performance as the President (not to mention a bazillion backroom deals), is what got him the not-guilty verdict in the impeachment hearing.
He may or may not have committed perjury, but one thing is for certain, he mislead, obfuscated and lied under oath. It just wasn't necessarily perjury. I know very few people who will say that Clinton committed perjury, but I know a lot who will say that he lied under oath, because he did. And that's not a myth.
I guess I need to go back to the back lot at the Dallas Pilot and get some of my money back because apparently I didn't have sex last week....
Character matters. Put it in perspective. His oath to his wife meant nothing to him. His oath in court meant nothing to him. Why would we then believe that his oath to protect and defend the Constitution mean anything to him? A job that he did NOT do all that well or even show an interest in. Strange wonder considering his track record with oaths.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
Ha! Reminds me of when an old girlfriend said she was out of comission cause she had a gyno apt the next day. Well lucky for me, She didn't have any Dentist apt scheduled.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Re: Another Democrat hypocrite
It seems the congress and the grand jury thought perjury was the right term to use. He did stand trail in the house under Obstruction and Perjury, not maybe standing in the way in a door way or kind of fibbing while on the stand.
As for his record, he can't claim the welfare reductions, that was a republican congress that handed him that one. The BIG boom that we saw in the economy also went BIG BUST when the tech bubble popped. Oh and that connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet, BFD, we are paying for that through a somewhat questionable fee on our phone bills, which is really a tax.
The brady bill, what a joke that turned out to be. It seems it would have been better not to drive the price of weapons up so your lobbying friends would not make money but instead just write an executive order to force Federally licensed dealers to do checks. Forgot someone mentioned that felons still have easier access to firearms, opps.
How about the raising education standards, yep we still have declining education standards as a country and Sri Lanka and India are beating us in many ways. Why does a dirt poor person from India have children who not just make it through American schools but become top grade earners while our native children can't tell you who their senator is or who is on the fifty dollar bill? I will give you that since Reagan, the need for the Federal Government to be out of education increases yearly.
100,000 more police for our streets, Yep he surely did put 100,000 more police on the streets but by 1999, he and congress cut funding to the programs that supported these officers and what happened, 100,000 laid off police who were not on the street. By the way, the same thing happened with Bush, he pushed hard for funding of all these DHS style programs and then cut the funding by 2005.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus which actually is somewhat of a lie. See it wasn't a surplus, it was a projected surplus and it didn't take into account unfunded mandates or the payback of the SS system. Nevertheless, he did great PR on that one.
Another sort of a lie, lowest government spending in three decade. See that was not true because he didn't finish his "reinventing government" act. If he did, then we would have seen it happen.
It seems the congress and the grand jury thought perjury was the right term to use. He did stand trail in the house under Obstruction and Perjury, not maybe standing in the way in a door way or kind of fibbing while on the stand.
As for his record, he can't claim the welfare reductions, that was a republican congress that handed him that one. The BIG boom that we saw in the economy also went BIG BUST when the tech bubble popped. Oh and that connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet, BFD, we are paying for that through a somewhat questionable fee on our phone bills, which is really a tax.
The brady bill, what a joke that turned out to be. It seems it would have been better not to drive the price of weapons up so your lobbying friends would not make money but instead just write an executive order to force Federally licensed dealers to do checks. Forgot someone mentioned that felons still have easier access to firearms, opps.
How about the raising education standards, yep we still have declining education standards as a country and Sri Lanka and India are beating us in many ways. Why does a dirt poor person from India have children who not just make it through American schools but become top grade earners while our native children can't tell you who their senator is or who is on the fifty dollar bill? I will give you that since Reagan, the need for the Federal Government to be out of education increases yearly.
100,000 more police for our streets, Yep he surely did put 100,000 more police on the streets but by 1999, he and congress cut funding to the programs that supported these officers and what happened, 100,000 laid off police who were not on the street. By the way, the same thing happened with Bush, he pushed hard for funding of all these DHS style programs and then cut the funding by 2005.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus which actually is somewhat of a lie. See it wasn't a surplus, it was a projected surplus and it didn't take into account unfunded mandates or the payback of the SS system. Nevertheless, he did great PR on that one.
Another sort of a lie, lowest government spending in three decade. See that was not true because he didn't finish his "reinventing government" act. If he did, then we would have seen it happen.