When you know the guy you voted for is guilty of a crime...

Kangaroo court proof doesn’t count. And hear we are celebrating the constitution and probable cause, due process, and the right to cross examine witnesses. None of which as been afforded to Trump!

 

Well, it probably wasn't as open and shut as I asserted.

 

Movement .. kudos for that.. but lets push the bar further and trot out the argument of Big Dog --- Allan D. .

Perjury -
perjury, in law, the giving of false testimony under oath on an issue or point of inquiry regarded as material.

So --- we have to address the issue of materiality -- but to do this we also need to address the issue of the Special Council.

1 ) Materiality - How was the # of inches of cigar inserted into Monica's oval orifice by Slick Willy .. Material to White Water ?

Good Luck .. but .. in the world of Kangaroo clown show .. somehow this line of questioning was allowed --- something that would immediately be struck as irrelevant in a normal proceeding.

So we have violations of the Rules of Justice - Violation of the Rule of Law .. Equal Justice being just one of the Rule of Law Violations.

2) Special Council -- The SC has "Special Powers" -- The ability to violate the rules - violate essential liberty - do what it wants - can ask what ever question it wants.

So.. The SC - unlike a normal proceeding - is allowed to ask the question. Does this make lying to the question Perjury ?

I will stop here -- to view the big chasm -- one which is anything but simple .. and not open and shut.

Does the SC stating something is material - necessarily make it material --- ? Is the SC allowed to violate not only the laws of justice .. but the laws of logic and reason ? make that which is not material .. "Material" by waving a magic wand ?

 

You mean over 80 million people voted for Biden, even though they knew Biden had committed crimes? That's how much they hated Trump?

 

No. Discussions about nonsense by fake bots that you read on Facebook are in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

 

Are you won't even admit they are criminals. Joe Biden's family business virtually din e the day he was elect was selling access to Joe.

 

[QUOTE="Giftedone, post: 1073563619, member: 50378"lets push the bar further.......
Perjury -
perjury, in law, the giving of false testimony under oath on an issue or point of inquiry regarded as material.

So --- we have to address the issue of materiality -- but to do this we also need to address the issue of the Special Council.

1 ) Materiality - How was the # of inches of cigar inserted into Monica's oval orifice by Slick Willy .. Material to White Water ?

Good Luck .. but .. in the world of Kangaroo clown show .. somehow this line of questioning was allowed --- something that would immediately be struck as irrelevant in a normal proceeding.

So we have violations of the Rules of Justice - Violation of the Rule of Law .. Equal Justice being just one of the Rule of Law Violations.

2) Special Council -- The SC has "Special Powers" -- The ability to violate the rules - violate essential liberty - do what it wants - can ask what ever question it wants.

So.. The SC - unlike a normal proceeding - is allowed to ask the question. Does this make lying to the question Perjury ?

I will stop here -- to view the big chasm -- one which is anything but simple .. and not open and shut.

Does the SC stating something is material - necessarily make it material --- ? Is the SC allowed to violate not only the laws of justice .. but the laws of logic and reason ? make that which is not material .. "Material" by waving a magic wand ?[/QUOTE]For starters perjury also has to be known and purposefully done in addition to being material.

Your example is correct, but Clinton's perjury had nothing to do with White Water, and at this stage neither did the SC's investigation -- his then focus having been explicitly approved by AG Reno (which he didn't really want BTW). I don't think the size of the cigar would be material, but that was not a question or response that made Clinton subject to perjury. The questions where he did perjure himself were material (though in my personal opinion most, but not all, were ticky tack.)

I disagree with your question (but I suspect not your point.) The Special Council has no authority to violate judicial due process. He does get to ask any question he wants in front of a grand jury, and the witness can either answer truthfully, commit perjury, or refuse to answer. I think Starr would have had a tough time proving perjury in some of the questions he charged charge but not others, particularly those from the federal district judge's court, nor from the witness tampering and obstruction charges. If stupidity was a crime Clinton was most assuredly guilty for having agreed to testify for the grand jury in the first place.

 

I don't use Facebook, nor do I watch Fox News and the like.

 

Good answer .. sans the "SC has NO Authority to violate judicial process" ? Sure it does. that is what makes it special .. and why you talking just "Judicial Process" SC can do what ever it likes to you .. Stick a probe up your butt looking for dirt if it wants.

" White Water, and at this stage neither did the SC's investigation" - Yes .. what a tangled web we weave .. and critical point.

So we have "Scope Creep" -- Is that allowed ? OH Reno allowed it .. OK Is that allowed. ?

1) what is the new crime .. 2) does it rise to level of Special Investigation 3) what was question material to this crime? and 4) our justice system is supposed to protect the stupid too

1) What is this big crime that rises to the level of "Martial Law" "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" "The Big Bar" and it is supposed to be Big for a reason.. does it pass the giggle test ? We are giving authoritarian powers out here .. in direct violation of the founding principle .. reserved for extreme events only .. Natural Disaster ... Enemy massing at the walls ..

What was this Crime .. uncovered during the White Water investigation .. of which itself is questionable whether it meets the bar for Special Powers.

This is the problem -- you can't just change scope .. without that scope change meeting the same test as the original investigation scope. Were investigating someone with the nuclear codes .. and while doing so uncovered a bioweapons program .. Great .. continue .. go ahead.

What was this Crime .. uncovered . that met this bar. Answer ? "Clinton passing state secrets to Monica in midst of blowing load" -- fails the giggle test. Do you have something better ?

and when you remove the bar .. what have we done ? and obviously .. "It was allowed" so its allowed. What is it that we now allow ? and are you OK with this -- OK with "Kangarooland"

Congress was not OK with it .. and made changes .. in effort to not have this violation repeated .. an effort that failed .. as the same thing happened to Trump- exactly the same thing .. scope creep >>> =<<<< witch hunt -- by definition.

The 2 crimes that supposedly met this "Big Bar" 1) Involvement in DNC Hack 2) Involvement in FB Ads

2) fails .. IMO 1) barely ... but you better have some substantiation as the claim is quite ridiculous.

2 weeks into the investigation -- both 1) and 2) were shown to be false .. - justification for SC now void .. investigation over.

Again we had scope creep .. with no test being applied .. a rumor of Golden shower being sufficient .. shaging a porn star..

So .. Clinton's big crime .. that met the Big Bar ? That Reno Allowed..

 

You're bouncing around a bit and making it hard to keep up. To repeat, a special prosecutor or counsel must follow all of the rules and laws of the judicial process. He has more freedom with a grand jury but there he still has to follow its laws and rules. Not withstanding that, any prosecutor can stretch what they are allowed to do and do get away with a lot of shaky rotten stuff.

If a special prosecutor investigating a suspected crime uncovers another crime the only thing he is allowed to do is report it to the AG (well, if he follows the rules, unlike Mueller). Reno did not "allow" Starr to investigate another crime. She asked and appointed him to.

Two things: you seem to not comprehend the bar for a special prosecutor. Under current law it is simply the AG determines that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, and would present a conflict of interest for the Department, and would be in the public interest. The bar was more stringent in Clinton's time, but enough had been uncovered (which initially did not include any Monica stuff) that Reno and a three judge panel thought sufficient to continue. However Clinton himself approved (probably in a fit of stupid hubris). Also you are conflating the special prosecutor investigation with impeachment? It is impeachment that has the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors, not a special prosecutor, and that is solely determined by congress.

There was no evidence of a crime by either Clinton in White Water found by either Fiske or Starr, though others found evidence and prosecuted a couple of other White Water principals.

If you are asking my opinion of the Mueller appointment, I don't think it was anywhere near passing a required bar for significance. However, the only actual requirement amounted to the opinion of an assistant AG who was an active part of the defeat Trump any way way we can get away with cabal. If asking about the impeachments, IMO the Trump impeachments didn't come anywhere near being anything other than a gigantic sham, Clinton's was real but mostly ticky-tack and didn't rise to the constitutional requirement, and Johnson's was a contrived sham.

 

Yes you do! You just don't know it because you are not diligent enough to try to find out where the fake talking points you spew originated.

 

You mean a few million fewer voted for Trump, even though they knew Trump had committed crimes? That's how much they hate Biden?

 

I don't spew fake points.

 

I'll take that as a whataboutism admission.

 

Lol, someone forgot to check the OP before going tappy tappy on their keyboard. This thread is about Trump. YOU were the one who engaged in whataboutism which, by your own admission, is an admission that you know you are wrong. I was just trying to get you back on topic. But, please, one white flag is enough. I don't need you to give me any more than you already have. You can save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you just abandon the thread now.

 

Whataboutism means both sides did it and do it. Thanks for your admission.

 

You said whataboutism was an admission . . . while you were engaging in whataboutism. And, no, I haven't said that both sides have attempted to overthrow our government and install an unelected dictator. Only one side did that. I look forward to your 3rd confession of guilt in a row. Go for it.

 

""This thread is about Trump.""
The thread is labeled "When you know the guy you voted for is guilty of a crime..." that is crime boss Joe Biden and his sleazy family dealings... all documented and undisputable.
You threw in Bill Clinton so it is not about Trump

 

Electoral Count Act of 1887... still on the books for just this thing... nice and legal...

Spin away my liberal friend...

 

Try actually reading the OP. As in the opening post. OP = Opening Post. That's what it stands for. Try reading it. Just try.

 

Lol, even Eastman admitted that his plot violated the ECA. And, no, the ECA isn't here for "just this thing." Keep cheerleading for dictatorship all you want, but I will not join you in shaking my pom poms. I'd rather cheer for the Constitution than cheer for dictatorship. And that's where you and I diverge.

 

""It took me like 20 minutes to process the fact that Bill Clinton was guilty of a crime.""
It is not a Trump post , it is a "When you know the guy you voted for is guilty of a crime"...post
That's what it stands for. Try reading it. Just try. That fits crime boss Joe Biden best...

 

""Eastman admitted that his plot violated the ECA""
No he didn't. It was someone else saying he did...Greg Jacob, former counsel to Pence... he provided no proof or evidence and was not cross-examined.

 

Read the whole thing. The whole thing. If that is too difficult, then just say so and we can just part ways now.

 

The facts (and Eastman) say otherwise