The Tulsi Disgrace

[ch33zw1z]

Glad you brought up Clinton. Is lying under oath a crime? Yes or No. Don’t be a coward and dodge the question with nuance.

Aww shit, someone else used the "C" word so Starbuck can now get his fix!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Aww shit, someone else used the "C" word so Starbuck can now get his fix!

Ok, cheesy. Is lying under oath a crime. Yes or No will suffice.

 

[cytg111]

Aww shit, someone else used the "C" word so Starbuck can now get his fix!

Triggggggered

 

[JEDIYoda]

You can revisit the celebration of just about any historical figure. The point is that the song’s lyrics highlight the negative aspects of personality cult, and most reasonable people would not place Gandhi and Kennedy within the same context as Stalin and Mussolini...unless they just needed famous names to rhyme in the song.

You’re right. Within the context of this thread, Tulsi Gabbard made a decision that was neither black nor white. It seems some are struggling with her exercising nuance and freewill.

The dictionary that you use is not the same as the one everyone else is using!
Nowhere can her actions be considered anything more than that of a coward and somebody who is afraid, very afraid it seems to take a stand! That doesn`t have anything to do with exercising nuance or freewill!
Had she even abstained I am sure others would be quicker to defend her actions!
What she was exercising was exactly what her handlers told her to do!!
As somebody pointed out her or in another thread -- I guess Hillary was right!!

 

[pmv]

And while both men accomplished great things, they also both deceived and exploited people. Kennedy was a serial womanizer and Ghandi was a raging sexist, pedo and racist.

See how that works? It's never black and white.

Pedo? Never heard that one. Certainly a bit sexist and at least when younger he was quite racist, though I think maybe you do have to take account of the particular context.

Personally I've never been a fan of either Kennedy or Gandhi. The former is especially over-rated. I didn't listen to the song, but 'heroes' always have feet-of-clay, every time.

 

[HurleyBird]

Since it was a yay or nay vote.

No. It's a yay/nay/present vote. Those are the actual options. And it's electronic. You can't fill in a fourth alternative.

She didn't abstain.....she voted present, a completely different thing.

The amount of people mindlessly using this talking point is depressing. Even if there was a distinction, this would be quibbling of the highest order. But there isn't. The two are equivalent. Do any of you people do research?

Abstention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In the Council of the European Union, an abstention on a matter decided by unanimity has the effect of a yes vote; on matters decided by qualified majority it has an effect of a no vote.

In the United States House of Representatives and many other legislatures, members may vote "present" rather than for or against a bill or resolution, which has the effect of an abstention."

But I'll grant you the nuance angle. But the nuance she espoused was Trump did indeed act incorrectly but should only face censure, not impeachment.

The nuance was that she thought Trump did do something wrong, but that the impeachment process has been a partisan shit show and removing Trump from office would be extremely damaging for the country given how things have been handled.

But while a no vote implies support for Trump, abstaining most closely aligns with her viewpoint.

No one was asking her to vote against her convictions.....your assertion that anyone was is laughable and a red herring.

You actually think her voting 'no' wouldn't have led to the exact same screeching? What an utter lack of self awareness.

you seem to understand her conviction in this was to really vote NO as she'd been quite vocal about being against the impeachment of Trump. You said as much when you stated "vote against her convictions by saying 'yay'."

Again, this facile black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mentality. No, that doesn't follow. Grow up.

This is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.....Clinton's impeachment was a sham. Impeached for lying to Congress about a blow job....really?

No one cares about the blow job. Perjury under oath is a very serious crime. That's beside the point though. In 1998, Nadler's claim was that impeachment requires an "overwhelming consensus" of the american people and congress, as well as bipartisan support... lest the impeachment lack legitimacy and inflict divisiveness. There's no way to square that with his recent actions.

If you want cowardice, there you have it. Go nuts. Or don't, and show your hypocrisy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ok, cheesy. Is lying under oath a crime. Yes or No will suffice.

Nice try with the false equivalence of high crimes.

Is lying under oath about a consensual and potentially embarrassing sexual encounter an impeachable high crime?

Is it more of a crime than obstruction of justice in an election corruption investigation or seeking foreign intervention in domestic affairs?

Good luck Charlie!

 

[Maxima1]

The nuance was that she thought Trump did do something wrong, but that the impeachment process has been a partisan shit show and removing Trump from office would be extremely damaging for the country given how things have been handled.

Saying that *both sides* have been "hyperpartisan" is pure horseshit and shows her true colors.

No one cares about the blow job. Perjury under oath is a very serious crime.

Comparing perjury of lying about a blow job in a civil deposition to Trump's wrongdoing with Ukraine is idiotic.

That's beside the point though. In 1998, Nadler's claim was that impeachment requires an "overwhelming consensus" of the american people and congress, as well as bipartisan support... lest the impeachment lack legitimacy and inflict divisiveness. There's no way to square that with his recent actions.

You can't get bipartisan support when one party no longer wants a democracy and a large portion of the country is fed propaganda. It's idiotic to hold Nadler to that rhetoric that he didn't bother to qualify.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Saying that *both sides* have been "hyperpartisan" is pure horseshit and shows her true colors.



Comparing perjury of lying about a blow job in a civil deposition to Trump's wrongdoing with Ukraine is idiotic.



You can't get bipartisan support when one party no longer wants a democracy and a large portion of the country is fed propaganda. It's idiotic to hold Nadler to that rhetoric that he didn't bother to qualify.

Her true colors are that she has the courage to call bullshit even when its not politically convenient.

It’s not idiotic. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of rationalize when my side does something wrong. Equivalence is irrelevant, but am enjoying how politicians are dancing around their polar opposite positions from during the Clinton impeachment.

 

[pmv]

No. It's a yay/nay/present vote. Those are the actual options. And it's electronic. You can't fill in a fourth alternative.



The amount of people mindlessly using this talking point is depressing. Even if there was a distinction, this would be quibbling of the highest order. But there isn't. The two are equivalent. Do any of you people do research?

Abstention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In the Council of the European Union, an abstention on a matter decided by unanimity has the effect of a yes vote; on matters decided by qualified majority it has an effect of a no vote.

In the United States House of Representatives and many other legislatures, members may vote "present" rather than for or against a bill or resolution, which has the effect of an abstention."

I agree with that - I've been utterly baffled by those making a big deal out of the use of the word 'present'. Strikes me that complaint is daft, and a distraction from the real issue.

The nuance was that she thought Trump did do something wrong, but that the impeachment process has been a partisan shit show and removing Trump from office would be extremely damaging for the country given how things have been handled.

But while a no vote implies support for Trump, abstaining most closely aligns with her viewpoint.

Sure. But people are still free to think that's a lousy viewpoint. Besides, is there really any chance this will lead to Trump being removed from office?

Again, this facile black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mentality. No, that doesn't follow. Grow up.

I disagree with this. With-us-or-against-us is a perfectly legitimate mentality, that is quite appropriate for many situations. Who are you to declare that it isn't the 'grown-up' attitude? I'm also not at all convinced you'd be so against that 'mentality' in some other circumstances where it was a cause you sided with and felt to be important, that someone was defecting from. I suspect everyone is capable of taking against someone who chooses 'neutrality' in some important dispute.

 

[pmv]

Her true colors are that she has the courage to call bullshit even when its not politically convenient.

It’s not idiotic. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of rationalize when my side does something wrong. Equivalence is irrelevant, but am enjoying how politicians are dancing around their polar opposite positions from during the Clinton impeachment.

Where is the impeachment process going against the law? Seems to me the rules around that process leave a huge amount to subjective judgement. That's in the nature of the laws relating to this topic.

 

[Maxima1]

Her true colors are that she has the courage to call bullshit even when its not politically convenient.

She's ironically causing the division because she's parroting BS talking points about the Democrats being hyperpartisan and fueling a civil war. She repeats bullshit talking points you find on Fox or Kremlin twitter. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out she gets a cabinet position in Trump admin if he gets reelected again.

It’s not idiotic. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of rationalize when my side does something wrong. Equivalence is irrelevant, but am enjoying how politicians are dancing around their polar opposite positions from during the Clinton impeachment.

Lying is so common and often goes unpunished for several reasons that arguably applied to his own. We also should consider in his impeachment why the scope was allowed to go that far. I would suggest to you that the presidency has seen far worse with Trump in regards to the issue of lying. His constant lying has been far more damaging than whatever Clinton's deposition did. Funnily enough, he wouldn't last 10 seconds under oath.

 

[woolfe9998]

Glad you brought up Clinton. Is lying under oath a crime? Yes or No. Don’t be a coward and dodge the question with nuance.

It is when it's "material" to the proceeding in which the lie was made. Clinton's lie in deposition in the Paula Jones case was not material under the law because no judge would have ruled any of his answers about Lewinsky to be admissible at trial.

Sorry about all the "nuance" but that is what the law is. It really doesn't change anything about how one would morally assess Clinton's conduct. Nor does it affect impeachment since impeachment doesn't require commission of a crime. But you asked a straight legal question, so I'm giving you a straight legal answer.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Ok, cheesy. Is lying under oath a crime. Yes or No will suffice.

It's a gray area that even the courts don't agree on. Perjury in a courtroom trial doesn't always get punished. Police and Prosecutors lie in court all the time. People end up going to prison for years. Sometimes they get exonerated, but rarely do the cops or Prosecutors that lied get held accountable.


Bubba is said to have lied about what was essentially a personal encounter that wasn't really anybody's business.

The Don lies about everything, even about not being a liar and a backstabbing, thieving, blackmailing bastard. Then he openly directed others not to testify, which is pretty much the essence of obstructing Justice.

Even the ultra conservative National Review is now calling for his conviction and removal.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's a gray area that even the courts don't agree on. Perjury in a courtroom trial doesn't always get punished. Police and Prosecutors lie in court all the time. People end up going to prison for years. Sometimes they get exonerated, but rarely do the cops or Prosecutors that lied get held accountable.

We should hold the office of the President to a higher standard

Bubba is said to have lied about what was essentially a personal encounter that wasn't really anybody's business.

Bubba is a sexual predator who abused the power dynamic of his position. I wonder what the public response would be to candidate Bubba in a post #metoo world.

The Don lies about everything, even about not being a liar and a backstabbing, thieving, blackmailing bastard. Then he openly directed others not to testify, which is pretty much the essence of obstructing Justice.

Which is why he should be impeached yet only a fraction of these allegations made it into the articles of impeachment.

Even the ultra conservative National Review is now calling for his conviction and removal.

I expect that trend to continue. Trump is about to get shoved.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes? What am I missing here. Whatever it is I'm blaming it on my old age.

Who are all you people and why are you on my lawn?! And when did I get a lawn?

lawns are distributed to everyone at the advanced age of 65.

 

[qliveur]

It's amazing that people are still trying to rationalize Clinton''s perjury 20 years later.

If any of us did the same we'd go to prison, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[JSt0rm]

chuds sure are concerned about Tulsi.

 

[feralkid]

It's amazing that people are still trying to rationalize Clinton''s perjury 20 years later.

If any of us did the same we'd go to prison, regardless of the circumstances.

That's certainly debatable. A judge is apt to consider the circumstances before sending someone straight to prison.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's amazing that people are still trying to rationalize Clinton''s perjury 20 years later.

If any of us did the same we'd go to prison, regardless of the circumstances.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. Perjury is way under-prosecuted. People get away with it almost every time.

 

[qliveur]

Using "chud" unironically...

That's highly questionable. A judge is apt to consider the circumstances before sending someone straight to prison.

With a federal felony?

Pffffft.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. Perjury is way under-prosecuted. People get away with it almost every time.

With irrefutable proof?

C'mon.

 

[feralkid]

Sputter away, but the fact is it happens quite often.

 

[woolfe9998]

Using "chud" unironically...

With a federal felony?

Pffffft.

With irrefutable proof?

C'mon.

There usually isn't "irrefutable proof." That's the problem. To get a conviction for perjury, you must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The usual defense is "I mis-remembered" or "I misspoke." When you need proof BRD, that defense generally wins. Since prosecutors don't like to lose, they usually pass on prosecuting perjury.

Clinton's case was different. No problem proving a lie there, but there was a solid legal defense based on the immateriality of all his answers about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. See my post above.

 

[zinfamous]

It's amazing that people are still trying to rationalize Clinton''s perjury 20 years later.

If any of us did the same we'd go to prison, regardless of the circumstances.

not at all true.

 

[zinfamous]

With a federal felony?

...as opposed to what other kind of felony?