Dixie, you sure have been quiet about the meltdown of your canidate Cain... Whatsup?

Typical Politician Indeed

Cain-Typical-Politician.jpg
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I can't help which Bible you want to use to justify your behavior; but the one I was taught from said nothing about women being a "gift".

Nice to see you think women should have to be subjected to someone constantly ogleing them.
Click to expand...

Constantly ogling? Most times I barely have enough time to get a decent peek and they're gone. :(
 
Dixie said:
If the question was not material to the case, they wouldn't have asked it. If Clinton didn't feel it was their business, he could have said so, he didn't have to lie. Perjury is the giving of false testimony under oath, that is what Clinton was found guilty of by Susan Weber Wright, and ultimately impeached for. So yes... it WAS necessarily perjury.
Click to expand...

Pittafully silly....

In deposition and in front of a Grand Jury they ask immaterial questions all the time. Its called a fishing expidition for a reason. You can ask any question that is "reasonably calculated to lead to admissable evidence".
 
Jarod said:
Pittafully silly....

In deposition and in front of a Grand Jury they ask immaterial questions all the time. Its called a fishing expidition for a reason. You can ask any question that is "reasonably calculated to lead to admissable evidence".
Click to expand...

And you are under oath and must answer honestly, or it's called PERJURY. Judge Susan Weber Wright, found that Clinton committed perjury in his grand jury testimony... it doesn't matter if it was 'material' to the case, it was still perjury. This is ultimately why Congress voted to impeach him, and why he was disbarred. The only thing that is pitifully silly here, is you trying to spin this into something else.
 
Dixie said:
And you are under oath and must answer honestly, or it's called PERJURY. Judge Susan Weber Wright, found that Clinton committed perjury in his grand jury testimony... it doesn't matter if it was 'material' to the case, it was still perjury. This is ultimately why Congress voted to impeach him, and why he was disbarred. The only thing that is pitifully silly here, is you trying to spin this into something else.
Click to expand...

Judge Wright found him in Contempt of court for being untruthfull in testamony. The presidnet was never charged with Perjury. The reason he was not charged with perjury was because what he did never rose to that level, the untruthfull testamony was not material. Congress makes up its own rules and laws. The Bar association makes up its own rules and laws. These things are different than the legal defination of Perjury.
 
I love how many R's who attacked president Clinton from the first allegation turn and defend Cain through these now 4 allegations.
 


Sounds to me like Horny Herman took some lessons in denial from Slick Willie.
 
I've gotta say, it was interesting watching some of the talking heads on the right, yesterday. O'Reilly said that Americans were getting tired of this kind of "smear campaign," which - if you didn't notice - immediately classifies the women as liars.

And then Hannity was on, talking about how "liberals" always feel the need to take a strong candidate down, and making a big deal about the duration of time from the alleged incident of the latest woman to come forward & her going public (14 years! 14 years! What does that tell you?)

It's just such blatant hypocrisy, from guys whose every word is recorded & out there for everyone to see. 15 or so years ago, it wasn't about smear campaigns or the duration from incident to allegation: it was about a sleazy politician.
 
Its funny to me to see how many of those who attacked "Slick Willie" are now defending "Horney Herman".
 
"O'Reilly said that Americans were getting tired of this kind of "smear campaign," which - if you didn't notice - immediately classifies the women as liars."

People should really think about this.
 
Darla said:
"O'Reilly said that Americans were getting tired of this kind of "smear campaign," which - if you didn't notice - immediately classifies the women as liars."

People should really think about this.
Click to expand...

Oh, you should have seen it. After he said that, he acknowledged that there is no doubt that some politicians "misbehave a bit," and the way he said it really bordered on nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

He's pretty old school on the sexual harassment thing, imo. Think falafel.
 
Darla said:
"O'Reilly said that Americans were getting tired of this kind of "smear campaign," which - if you didn't notice - immediately classifies the women as liars."

People should really think about this.
Click to expand...

I have thought about this. One woman has a history of filing sexuall harrassment claims. Back in the 90s, sexual harrassment claims were the in thing to do. Have you thought about that?

So you're saying that if 4-5 men get together and say Hillary Clinton slept with them, are we supposed to believe them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top