PureX
Veteran Member
Oh, C'mon. Get real!Two bad choices.
As for investigation?
I dont do tele-motive readings.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, C'mon. Get real!Two bad choices.
As for investigation?
I dont do tele-motive readings.
I have repeated it a half dozen times, now, that Clinton was deliberately induced to lie by an illegal "investigation" that was nothing more than a morality witch-hunt intended to smear him in public, and if he lied to try and avoid it, then to prosecute him for that, too. It was a deliberate abuse and miscarriage of justice instigated by the republican party. And most of the American public knew it. Which is why they did not turn against Clinton for his cheating on his wife or his lying about. And the whole ugly thing blew up in the republican's faces. As they came off looking even lower and more petty than Clinton did.You tell us "the point".
Why was the investigation illegal?I have repeated it a half dozen times, now, that Clinton was deliberately induced to lie by an illegal "investigation".....
Because there were no legitimate allegations of a crime, involved.Why was the investigation illegal?
The purpose was to use his sexual indiscretions to smear him in public. But they couldn't just "out him" without looking like the petty heels that they were, and of course he would just deny it if they tried. So they had to create a legal "investigation", so they could use (abuse) the power of law to "out him", and trap him if he lied.How do you know the purpose was to induce Bill to lie?
Why is that illegal?Because there were no legitimate allegations of a crime, involved.
I'm not ignoring your argument.The purpose was to use his sexual indiscretions to smear him in public. But they couldn't just "out him" without looking like the petty heels that they were, and of course he would just deny it if they tried. So they had to create a legal "investigation", so they could use (abuse) the power of law to "out him", and trap him if he lied.
And I think you already know all of this. Which is why I am perplexed that you seem so insistent on ignoring it, or worse, denying it.
That is untrue. She wasn't found guilty of that.Martha Stewart got caught doing exactly what they all do (profiting from inside information).
Are you saying that she was maliciously prosecuted?But she was in the public eye, and without their legal and political clout. So she got "punished" for it so they could all pretend they were "clean" in comparison.
Now you're just being absurd.Why is that illegal?
By asking you how the investigation was illegal?Now you're just being absurd.
Why was the investigation illegal?
How do you know the purpose was to induce Bill to lie?
Oh, please answer the question about Martha Stewart...
Was her prosecution wrong too?
Bill was a mischievous politician.I think this is apples and oranges. Martha Stewart was a mischievous capitalist...
or mischievous politicians....and there's never anything wrong with prosecuting mischievous capitalists.
Committing crimes for free is exculpatory?What Clinton did was bad, but there's no indication that he was doing it for money.
Source please.He was impeached for lying under oath. But, what he was asked is if he ever had sexual intercourse with Lewinsky. And he did not. Oral sex, under the definitions given to him was NOT intercourse.
By asking you how the investigation was illegal?
We just might agree on that.
Committing crimes for free is exculpatory?
Even so....Source please.
I ask because I always heard "sexual relations" not "sexual intercourse".
And?Even so....
Sexual Intercourse Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Sexual intercourse is defined as “vaginal intercourse or any insertion, however slight, of a hand, finger or object into the vagina, vulva, or labia, excluding such insertion for medical treatment or examination.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Vicars, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (3d Cir. V.I. Aug. 7, 2009)
Source please.
I ask because I always heard "sexual relations" not "sexual intercourse".
Again, source please.It was 'sexual relations', but the definition given him was 'genital-genital contact'. Oral sex did NOT qualify.
No one has presented any law that was violated by the investigation.There are penally relevant juridic situations.
And there are penally irrelevant juridic situations.
Being bribed by a foreign head of state is a penally relevant situation. In public law this is called High Treason and is a valid reason for impeachment.
Adultery is a penally irrelevant juridic situation. Meaning...a president cannot be investigated for something irrelevant both a)as for public law and b)as for penal law.
For example, our president can be impeached, by Constitution in 2 cases only . High Treason and Violation of the Constitution.
No one has presented any law that was violated by the investigation.
Not exactly that, but it appeared to be the gist of your post.I never said that. I just said it was different and not comparable.