Will Hillary's email problem be her undoing?

[Underhill]

This is a lot to read, but skimming it I find that it's the same old Democrats-are-innocent-victims-of-right-wing-conspiracies-but-Republicans-are-evil partisanship.
In particular, I find it amazing that the ostensibly "feminist" Democrats will sling the most sexist sleaze so long as the recipient is on the other side.
Dems & Pubs.....both are immature self-centered bickering children.

No, that isn't what I said at all.

100 million dollars in federal investigations into the Clintons, none of started with a shred of evidence or found anything illegal.

vs.

Media scandal and legitimately prosecuted criminal activity.

Not the same thing at all.

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that isn't what I said at all.
100 million dollars in federal investigations into the Clintons, none of started with a shred of evidence or found anything illegal.
vs.
Media scandal and legitimately prosecuted criminal activity.
Not the same thing at all.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

Some perspectives are so ingrained as to be immutable.
Even Clinton's clearly committed felonies (perjury & suborning perjury) aren't acknowledged by the party faithful.
I'm sure the Pubs feel they're innocent victims too.
We'll have to just acknowledge disagreement on their relative malevolence.

 

[Underhill]

Some perspectives are so ingrained as to be immutable.
Even Clinton's clearly committed felonies (perjury & suborning perjury) aren't acknowledged by the party faithful.
I'm sure the Pubs feel they're innocent victims too.
We'll have to just acknowledge disagreement on their relative malevolence.

You are missing the point. Why was Clinton asked about the sexual encounter in the first place?

I've acknowledged he was wrong to lie. But the entire investigation was a fraud and found no illegal activity (you know, the point of the investigation). None of the 19 odd investigations leveled at the Clintons have ever found anything illegal.

Let me put it another way. In any other jurisdiction, not one of those investigations would have occurred. There was nothing to warrant them other than purely political motives.

There isn't another case I know of, where so much money has been wasted investigating speculation, in the history of the world. And yet, nothing has been found.

But yes, he lied about a BJ. You got me there.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are missing the point.

Let me check.
Nope.
I'm right on target.

Why was Clinton asked about the sexual encounter in the first place?

Because the scandal became front page news.
(This was after concerted efforts by friends to suppress the news, eg, NPR, Newsweek.)

I've acknowledged he was wrong to lie. But the entire investigation was a fraud and found no illegal activity (you know, the point of the investigation). None of the 19 odd investigations leveled at the Clintons have ever found anything illegal.

Where was the fraud in the investigation?
Are you saying that lying to a grand jury & suborning perjury are legal acts, & not felonious?

Let me put it another way. In any other jurisdiction, not one of those investigations would have occurred. There was nothing to warrant them other than purely political motives.
There isn't another case I know of, where so much money has been wasted investigating speculation, in the history of the world. And yet, nothing has been found.

You could make the same argument about C Thomas.
But Pubs relentlessly defend him, just as Dems do the same for Boink'n Bill.

But yes, he lied about a BJ. You got me there.

That is the one thing which doesn't matter to me much at all.
Why would you care so much about that, but not his following felonies?

 

[Underhill]

Let me check.
Nope.
I'm right on target.

Because the scandal became front page news.
(This was after concerted efforts by friends to suppress the news, eg, NPR, Newsweek.)

Where was the fraud in the investigation?
Are you saying that lying to a grand jury & suborning perjury are legal acts, & not felonious?

No, I'm saying he was being investigated for whitewater, where there was no evidence, just speculation of wrongdoing. Nothing was found there. So Starr started looking into anything and everything else. He then heard, in the course of an unrelated investigation, that clinton was having an affair. He then leaked the info to another group investigating the paula jones **** (where nothing was again found) who was in the process of questioning Clinton and brought it up.

So in the course of multiple investigations where nothing legitimate was found, he was questioned about an unrelated affair and he lied.

But none of it should have happened in the first place.

You could make the same argument about C Thomas.
But Pubs relentlessly defend him, just as Dems do the same for Boink'n Bill.

There was no investigation of Thomas other than the routine investigations they do for anyone being promoted to the supreme court. He, and the women, were questioned in his nomination hearings. Political? sure. But we didn't spend millions digging up dirt on the guy. He was questioned about something he did in the course of his hearing for the supreme court.

That is the one thing which doesn't matter to me much at all.
Why would you care so much about that, but not his following felonies?

Because the reality is THAT was what they were really after. He was screwed no matter what he did. Lying made what he did illegal, but they were going to hang him out to dry if he told the truth too. In 100 million dollars in investigations into the Clintons, the only thing they actually learned that could get them in trouble was about his BJ. The felonies were just Bill being stupid. Wrong, yep. Stupid, indubitably. Heinous crimes worthy of slander and scorn for all time? Nope.

Half the men in the country have been guilty of the same. They just weren't being asked about it in front of a grand jury.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no investigation of Thomas other than the routine investigations they do for anyone being promoted to the supreme court. He, and the women, were questioned in his nomination hearings. Political? sure. But we didn't spend millions digging up dirt on the guy. He was questioned about something he did in the course of his hearing for the supreme court.

This is not accurate.
It was the NPR (a very pro Democrat radio news source) reporter, Nina Totenberg, who pursued Anita Hill & made the story front page news. They went after Thomas for sins which were far smaller than those of Clinton, whom they chose to protect by ignoring the stories until after he was re-elected.

Because the reality is THAT was what they were really after. He was screwed no matter what he did. Lying made what he did illegal, but they were going to hang him out to dry if he told the truth too. In 100 million dollars in investigations into the Clintons, the only thing they actually learned that could get them in trouble was about his BJ. The felonies were just Bill being stupid. Wrong, yep. Stupid, indubitably. Heinous crimes worthy of slander and scorn for all time? Nope.
Half the men in the country have been guilty of the same. They just weren't being asked about it in front of a grand jury.

No amount of trying to make Clinton's woes be about office dalliances will defeat the incontrovertible fact that Clinton committed felonies in his lying about it. To say that nothing he did would avoid the realized consequences is just his petulant whining about how the "vast right wing conspiracy" would inexorably prevail. He takes no responsibility for the results of his own misfeasance & malfeasance. And his escaping prosecution is typical of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Shameless partisan apologists are the ones who enable this endless corruption. Blago should have far more company of his fellows in prison.

 

[esmith]

. Now I'm sure that many will agree with what Bill Clinton did concerning his evasion of the draft in Vietnam. However, I for one have no use for anyone that fled to Canada or in Billy's case just manipulated the system and as one of the "privilege" evaded being drafted. So, as far as I'm concerned Billy may not have violated the law, but his actions are reprehensible to me and his

" self-serving doublespeak that later earned him the sobriquet "Slick Willie."

(quote from
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp) which further followed him in his career. He and his wife are birds of a feather. I wouldn't trust either of them if it was either the Nation or themselves.

 

[Underhill]

This is not accurate.
It was the NPR (a very pro Democrat radio news source) reporter, Nina Totenberg, who pursued Anita Hill & made the story front page news. They went after Thomas for sins which were far smaller than those of Clinton, whom they chose to protect by ignoring the stories until after he was re-elected.

Smaller than what sins?

I knew about NPR. But it's irrelevant to my point. As I said, the media goes after everyone.

I would also point out that Clinton lied to a Grand Jury that was trying (unsuccessfully) to condemn Clinton for exactly the same types of 'sins' Thomas was accused of.

No amount of trying to make Clinton's woes be about office dalliances will defeat the incontrovertible fact that Clinton committed felonies in his lying about it. To say that nothing he did would avoid the realized consequences is just his petulant whining about how the "vast right wing conspiracy" would inexorably prevail. He takes no responsibility for the results of his own misfeasance & malfeasance. And his escaping prosecution is typical of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Shameless partisan apologists are the ones who enable this endless corruption. Blago should have far more company of his fellows in prison.

Wow, so lying about his dalliances should have had him in jail? Or are you talking about his other "sins" none of which there is any evidence for?

It just blows my mind that someone I thought was a reasonable person would condemn him for lying but ignore the fact that all of these investigations are unjust. Whitewater, Paula Jones, Benghazi and now this email scandal. None of it was based in anything other than conjecture. The only case with a single witness claiming wrong doing was Paula Jones and she had skin in the game.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, so lying about his dalliances should have had him in jail?

Ordinary citizens go to jail for such lies.
Do you really advocate that politicians be above the law which governs the rest of us?
Btw, I wanted Nixon in jail too....with a lot of company.
But then, I know I'm more of a law & order type than most......I just want far fewer laws, with more consistent enforcement.

As for other parts of your post, we're beginning to cover the same ground repeatedly.
You won't convince me that Hillary or Bill suffered anything different from what other
politicians would had they behaved similarly. If anything, they've come out rather unscathed.
And if it keeps Hillary out of the White House, that's a bonus for us all.

For reference, one of the many cases where people go to jail for solely committing perjury.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/20/w...ilty-of-perjury-is-jailed-for-four-years.html

Edit:
Martha Stewart went to jail for perjury, even though it appeared there was no underlying crime whatsoever.

 

[Underhill]

. Now I'm sure that many will agree with what Bill Clinton did concerning his evasion of the draft in Vietnam. However, I for one have no use for anyone that fled to Canada or in Billy's case just manipulated the system and as one of the "privilege" evaded being drafted. So, as far as I'm concerned Billy may not have violated the law, but his actions are reprehensible to me and his (quote from
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp) which further followed him in his career. He and his wife are birds of a feather. I wouldn't trust either of them if it was either the Nation or themselves.

My father was also considered one of the "privileged" while he was in college.

I have no problem with Clinton getting out of the draft. It was a ****ty war that we shouldn't have been involved in.

And even if I did, the actions of anyone at 22 should not be held against them decades later. I did a lot of stupid things in my youth as has most everyone I know...

 

[Underhill]

Ordinary citizens go to jail for such lies.
Do you really advocate that politicians be above the law which governs the rest of us?
Btw, I wanted Nixon in jail too....with a lot of company.
But then, I know I'm more of a law & order type than most......I just want far fewer laws, with more consistent enforcement.

As for other parts of your post, we're beginning to cover the same ground repeatedly.
You won't convince me that Hillary or Bill suffered anything different from what other
politicians would had they behaved similarly. If anything, they've come out rather unscathed.
And if it keeps Hillary out of the White House, that's a bonus for us all.

For reference, one of the many cases where people go to jail for solely committing perjury.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/20/w...ilty-of-perjury-is-jailed-for-four-years.html

Edit:
Martha Stewart went to jail for perjury, even though it appeared there was no underlying crime whatsoever.

Martha Stewart went to jail for perjury because if she had told the truth, she would have been found guilty of other things.

I don't know of any cases in the US where a person was jailed for lying about extramarital sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

My father was also considered one of the "privileged" while he was in college.

I have no problem with Clinton getting out of the draft. It was a ****ty war that we shouldn't have been involved in.

And even if I did, the actions of anyone at 22 should not be held against them decades later. I did a lot of stupid things in my youth as has most everyone I know...

Note:
Both Clintons had "privilege" in avoiding the draft.
But societal sexism only takes Bill to task for this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Martha Stewart went to jail for perjury because if she had told the truth, she would have been found guilty of other things.

So you say.
But they failed to make that case.
She was imprisoned for perjury alone.

I don't know of any cases in the US where a person was jailed for lying about extramarital sex.

Search, & ye shall find.
I found several cases in a cursory search, but I'm sure you'd find differences in details which would exculpate Bill for you.
Is there a statute or case law which says perjury is only a crime if it's not about sex?
I've never heard of this exception.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wow, so lying about his dalliances should have had him in jail?

It wasn't just that he lied, but he lied under oath. For us regular folk, it's a very serious offense that would land jail time.

 

[Underhill]

So you say.
But they failed to make that case.
She was imprisoned for perjury alone.

Search, & ye shall find.
I found several cases in a cursory search, but I'm sure you'd find differences in details which would exculpate Bill for you.
Is there a statute or case law which says perjury is only a crime if it's not about sex?
I've never heard of this exception.

I'm sure there isn't one. And I've said at least 7 times in this thread that he was guilty of lying. But throughout history, presidents have been found guilty of much worse without doing jail time. So I still don't understand this obsession with Clinton's lie over politicians who have done much worse.

Look at Reagan...

"The only time Ronald Reagan ever talked about Iran-Contra under oath was in a deposition for the criminal trial of his former National Security Adviser John Poindexter. The deposition was in 1990, after Reagan had left office. He claimed that there was not "one iota" of evidence that profits from the sale of arms to Iran had been diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras, that his aides hadn't lied to Congress about the affair, and so on. All this was demonstrably false. The only reason he might not be guilty of perjury is that his mind pretty clearly was going.

But the very fact that Reagan was never forced to testify under oath as president illustrates the double standard that has trapped Bill Clinton. If Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh had operated like Kenneth Starr, he would have forced Reagan, while president, to repeat or renounce under oath his public lies about Iran-Contra, such as those in his first TV address on the subject, when he declared it "utterly false" that arms had been shipped to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. This was as vivid as Clinton's televised finger-wagging "that woman" sound bite, and just as flatly untrue. Reagan had been at several meetings where the arms-for-hostages deal was discussed--and, indeed, where Cabinet members had warned him it was illegal and he'd said he didn't care. If Walsh had been Starr, Reagan would have faced the same excruciating dilemma as Clinton: admit to a spectacular public lie or lie again under oath."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/1998/12/lies_damned_lies_and_impeachment.html

The same piece goes on to talk about Bush (Sr.)


"The case against George Bush--by the standards being applied to Bill Clinton--is even stronger. Bush claimed in the 1992 campaign that he'd given sworn testimony hundreds of times conceding that he knew all about the arms-for-hostages deal. In fact, when the story broke in 1986, Bush repeatedly claimed to have been "out of the loop." He knew we were selling arms to Iran--itself flatly illegal and spectacularly in conflict with the administration's public pronouncements--but, he claimed, he had no idea the deal involved paying ransom for hostages.

Specifically, Bush claimed not to have attended a January 1986 meeting at which Secretary of State George Schultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger vehemently opposed trading for hostages. When White House logs indicated that Bush was at the meeting, he emended his story to say he hadn't caught the drift of Schultz's and Weinberger's objections. If only he'd known George and Cap were as bothered as he was, Bush said, he would have tried to stop the policy. This was his story until 1992, when Walsh released notes taken by Weinberger at the meeting, recording that "VP approves" of the policy Bush claimed to be both ignorant of and disturbed by.

As president in 1989-93, Bush did his best to thwart Walsh's investigation. He tightened up on the release of classified information. A diary he started keeping in 1986 somehow never materialized until after the 1992 election. And his last-minute pardon of Weinberger, Poindexter, and others, after he'd lost re-election, effectively thwarted Walsh's pursuit of Bush himself, among others. No "obstruction of justice" or "abuse of presidential power" in Flytrap comes close."

 

[Underhill]

So you say.
But they failed to make that case.
She was imprisoned for perjury alone.

Along with conspiracy and 2 other charges.

 

[Underhill]

It wasn't just that he lied, but he lied under oath. For us regular folk, it's a very serious offense that would land jail time.

Actually, in researching this, I found the legal argument used to excuse his behavior.

Clinton was being asked about this during a Paula Jones hearing.

"Only a “material” statement can be perjury. The false statement must be capable of influencing the proceeding – that is, it must have a relationship to the subject of the proceeding. This includes a false statement that would tend to mislead or hamper an investigation. This means that a lie, even under oath, about a subject that is not material to the proceeding is not perjury. For example, falsely bragging that “I never update my Facebook page at work,” while testifying in a case having nothing to do with social networking at work, would not be a likely candidate for a perjury charge."

So how was lying about a sex scandal involving another woman a decade later provide material testimony to the Paula Jones case? This question was asked as a political trap, not as a question material to the case at hand. Thus it can, and was, argued that is was not perjury. He lied under oath. But the perjury charge would not stick.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/perjury.htm

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure there isn't one. And I've said at least 7 times in this thread that he was guilty of lying. But throughout history, presidents have been found guilty of much worse without doing jail time. So I still don't understand this obsession with Clinton's lie over politicians who have done much worse.

I should note that lying alone isn't the issue.
To lie for a public purpose, eg, to mislead an enemy in a conflict, is justifiable.
But of course, this should be subject to scrutiny of some others in government lest mischief be done.
But to lie for personal reasons when in court under oath is another matter entirely.
Again, I'm in favor of more jail time for politicians, who should be held to the same standards as we.

"The only time Ronald Reagan ever talked about Iran-Contra under oath was in a deposition for the criminal trial of his former National Security Adviser John Poindexter. The deposition was in 1990, after Reagan had left office. He claimed that there was not "one iota" of evidence that profits from the sale of arms to Iran had been diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras, that his aides hadn't lied to Congress about the affair, and so on. All this was demonstrably false. The only reason he might not be guilty of perjury is that his mind pretty clearly was going.

This a good example of lying which might be legal, albeit with a murky status.
This legality would be a function of legitimacy of purpose & to whom the lying was done.
As for Iran Contra & some other acts, I disagree with the actions, but can't say whether they're legal or not.
The WMDs sent to Iraq do strike me as illegal though.

But the very fact that Reagan was never forced to testify under oath as president illustrates the double standard that has trapped Bill Clinton.

Of course double standards abound.
Sometimes this works for Pubs, & other times for Dems.
The process is heavily political, but this doesn't mean we should abandon it for Bill Clinton.

As for the balance of your post, I don't defend illegal acts by Pubs.
Don't confuse me with a conservative, who might be a Republican apologist.
You don't exculpate Democrats by pointing to Republicans.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Only a “material” statement can be perjury.

Given that Clinton lied about questions directly relating to the investigation (whether you believe it legit or not), it was material.

 

[Underhill]

Given that Clinton lied about questions directly relating to the investigation (whether you believe it legit or not), it was material.

So legal actions he is taking today is "material" to a claim made 7 years earlier? It would have no impact on the case whatsoever. Thus, by definition is not material. The deposition was in regards to Lewinsky but the case the deposition was called for was Paula Jones v Clinton.

This is why, even Ken Starr, talked about him "lying under oath" and never officially called it "perjury".

"On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false". On September 11, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 525 by a vote of 363 to 63 authorizing a review by the Committee on the Judiciary of the report of the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced and also approved the public release of the Starr report. On September 21, the Judiciary Committee released nearly 3,200 pages of material from the grand jury proceedings and the Starr investigation, including transcripts of the tesimony of President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky."

Republicans in congress went on to call it perjury in the hearings but it does not fit the legal definition.

So far as I am concerned I believe what they did was right. What Clinton did was wrong and he was publicly humiliated for that. But I see no evidence that it was perjury.