653
Republican Admits Impeachment Probe Hasn't Found Any Crime by Joe Biden
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
653 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18863 readers
5795 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He didn’t technically lie— not by congress’s definition of “sex” given. But they said he lied anyway and impeached him all the same.
I want to stress that I could not care less about Clinton's sexual relationships. It was a bullshit partisan witch hunt, and everyone involved was a piece of shit.
But Clinton did lie about the nature of his relationship and his conduct. He should never have been asked the questions, and the entire investigation was a waste of time, but Clinton was under oath when he lied.
Perjury requires that the lie be material to the case, and I think you could argue that none of the testimony was material to any legitimate investigation. So if you want to say it wasn't perjury, I won't argue with you.
But his defense (and it seems like your argument, too) was to quibble over rhe words "sexual" and "is," because he wasn't at the time of the deposition engaged in coitus. "It wasn't sexual on my part because she only touched my penis with her mouth" is a stupid fucking argument. "The nature of our relationship is strictly profession because we have stopped fooling around" is also a stupid fucking argument. Those were both lies, and I think it's absurd to defend them given that we've survived four years of President Trump, and we're staring down the barrel of a potential second term of that shitbag.
Our leaders are not perfect. They're not even good people. Most of them are dipshits, panderers, and crooks. Trump is worse than any of them, and represents an existential threat to the Republic. It's good to acknowledge their flaws and criticize the leaders we support, because unwavering support is how you get Trump in the first place.
You can argue that he was dishonest, sure, and that he’s a slimebag, but he didn’t, by the definition set up by congress themselves, lie to congress. He out-lawyered them and out-maneuvered them, yet they smeared him and impeached him anyway. Because that’s what they set out to do, and not even the facts were going to stop them.
He was dishonest but he didn't lie? I think you're being dishonest with yourself.
There is no law that differentiates between a lie and dishonesty. He did not outmanoeuvre or out-lawyer anybody. He convinced five Republican Senators from Northeastern states to vote not guilty on both the perjury charge and the obstruction of justice charge. Do you really think that it was because they were persuaded by his legal arguments? Or is it more likely that polling in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island indicated that the voters there opposed conviction?
His statements were false, he knew they were false, and he was under oath. It's not "high crimes and misdemeanors" and I agree with your assessment of the intent of the GOP investigating him. I didn't think he should have been impeached at all, much less convicted, and I wrote a letter to my Senator, Arlen Spector, telling him as much. I'm not delusional enough to think that my letter persuaded the Senator to vote "not proved" but I would guess it was probably about as persuasive as Clinton's bullshit defense.
The republicans set a very narrow definition for the word “sex”, and by their definition, he didn’t lie.
Now you can post as many walls of text expressing your dissatisfaction with that, but it doesn’t change the facts.
There's three problems with that argument, and I don't want to bore you with text so I'll keep this short.
This isn't true.
Even if it were true, that definition of "sex" wasn't relevant to the statements he made on TV.
I don't believe his version of events.
In other words, Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.
For more detail
The definition says "any person" not just Lewinsky. She had contact with his genitals, so they were engaged in sex. To suggest that she was engaged in sex and he was not is a lie.
Outside the deposition where that overly narrow definition of sex was relevant, he looked into a camera on TV and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He did have sexual relations with that woman. That was a lie.
Lewinsky claimed Clinton groped her during their encounters. That is, by the narrow definition, sex. He said he didn't touch her at all, and she just sucked his dick. Have you ever had your dick sucked, or sucked a dick? His version of events does not ring true, and given the conflicting testimonies, I'm not inclined to believe the guy that I know is a liar.
You're right that facts don't change. Clinton did lie about his extramarital affairs. Denying facts is something conservatives do. Don't be like conservatives.
not to Congress, and not under oath. Not technically.
Under oath during a deposition, yes he did lie. I just explained how he lied.
No, he didn’t tho.
It’s history, and this is getting boring. He didn’t technically lie. You can post as many walls of text as you like, but you can’t change what happened.
He did lie in every meaning of the word, and pretending he didn't is some boomer head-in-the-sand bullshit.
He said he didn't touch her breasts, genitals, buttocks, or thighs while she was blowing him. She said he did grab those parts of her body while she was blowing him. He smoked cigars that had been inside of her, but he never touched her? Not once? Not a smack on the ass or a titty squeeze?
Do you really believe that?
But not in the technical aspect as the republicans laid out in their definition while he was under oath.
Look, you lost this argument the instant you began it, and every time you respond, I’m just gonna reply telling you that. Forever.
Give. It. Up.
You’re wrong.
He did lie in the technical aspect as the Republicans laid out in their definition while he was under oath. I've already demonstrated that. You haven't made any argument other than "nuh uh" and you want to dance around like you won.
No. Just stop. You’re never going to win this argument.
See, you think reality is an argument to win. You can have your opinions, but you don't get your own facts. I don't need to convince you.
Your type is so annoying.
"He lied to Congress!"
"No he didn't, per the definition the Congress gave of the act, he didn't lie."
"But he did lie! To his family!"
"Doesn't matter. We're talking about lying to Congress, and he technically didn't lie."
"But he lied!"
"Nope."
"Yes, he did!"
"Nope."
"YES HE DID!"
What the fuck are you talking about? I never mentioned his family. He lied under oath in his deposition. There's no technicality to it. Even with the absurdly twisted definition of "sex", he did have sex with her and said he didn't. I pointed this out six times.
You're trying to rewrite history in this comment thread.
Give. It. Up.
You lost this argument the moment you started it.
Stop feeding this troll, friend. It's probably a bot anyway.
That's what I keep trying to tell you, it was never an argument. You're just delusional. You haven't argued anything. None of your comments contain arguments, just denials.
I’m sorry that you can’t cope with the fact that you’re wrong and that Clinton didn’t lie to Congress.
You can keep this going for days or weeks or months, but I’ll just keep telling you that. Deal with it.
You keep saying "to Congress." Nobody ever accused him of that. He lied under oath in a deposition and to a grand jury. He said he didn't have sex or sexual relations with Lewinsky, and he did. He had sex with her mouth, and he groped her breasts and fingered her vagina, which falls under the definition of sex provided to him. Those things all happened, he swore an oath to tell the truth,and then he said he didn't. That's literally, technically, and in all other ways exactly what happened. He lied, and pretending he didn't is gaslighting. You can keep claiming it didn't happen, but we all know it did and nobody is going to believe you.
Another wall of text, more of you not letting it go.
You lost the argument as soon as you started it. Get. Over. It.
"Oh no, a paragraph of information I don't like."
Another wall of text, more of you not letting it go.
You lost the argument as soon as you started it. Get. Over. It.
Reading is fundamental. There's no shame in asking for help.
Go on then. Ask for help.
Ok, please, help me help you. For the sake of all humanity, go back and read the comment thread. Because you're not doing anybody any good being belligerently ignorant.
more of you not letting it go.
You lost the argument as soon as you started it. Get. Over. It.
It's definitely a bot. It's kinda fun to watch it insisting at it. It's like a Wrong Argument Terminator.
"It doesn't eat, it doesn't sleep, it won't stop until it has the last word."
Good troll.
Reality is upsetting to a lot of people.
Lol you're a good bot! :)
Lol you're a good troll! :)
Every accusation is an admission.
Lol you're a good troll! :)
then the people asking the question should have defined it such that oral sex counted. You don't get to choose one meaning when you ask the question and then another meaning when you report the answer. Bill Clinton is a piece of shit but they asked if he put his penis in her vagina and he said "no" because he didn't.