Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[RetiredGySgt]

He just jumps all over the board, doesn’t he – mixing up perjury with telling lies. Confusing “I have no doubt” with “there is no doubt”? Oh well. Same old same old.

Clinton DID commit Perjury. Read what it is. Here let me help.


http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of the case.

There is NO requirement that one be convicted to have committed Perjury. And since Clinton ADMITTED he lied under oath on a material matter before the Court, with the intent to deceive and effect the ruling ......


Go ahead Mr. Maineman explain that one away. Now if you want to state he was never convicted of Perjury thats ok, but you can not claim he did not commit Perjury.

Further you can not claim he was never charged, the main charge in the Impeachment was that he "LIED under Oath" and the vote on that was 55 to 45.


And the LEGAL definition of Perjury.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury.

 

[maineman]

So you agree there is no real proof Bush lied, thank you.

No...I firmly believed that Bush lied by creating the false impression of absolute certainty regarding Saddam's WMD's. That is one of the definitions of the word "lie" and he certainly stated that there was no doubt when doubt did, in fact, exist.

You refusal to just acknowledge that is really pretty funny at this point....funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No...I firmly believed that Bush lied by creating the false impression of absolute certainty regarding Saddam's WMD's. That is one of the definitions of the word "lie" and he certainly stated that there was no doubt when doubt did, in fact, exist.

You refusal to just acknowledge that is really pretty funny at this point....funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

The only pathetic thing or person here is the deluded one, the one so full of partisan rancor that they can not see straight. And that would be YOU.

SO pathetic that admitting the truth is not possible, You can not have it both ways, either you can not prove Bush lied or Gore is a liar. By YOUR definition. You do not get to pick and chose cause your mad at me. MY refusal to do as you want does not let you get to ignore your own "rules" and declare Gore is not a liar. My belief has nothing to do with YOUR position on what is or is not a lie.

 

[maineman]

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury.

"Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.

Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory."



http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

RGS: "Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury."
maineman: Bullshit!

and from this link:

"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."

again...Clinton was NEVER found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Did he lie? of course. Was he ever found guilty of the crime of perjury? no.

Bush has not been charged with a crime. But he certainly lied... he lied by making a statement that served to create a false impression... and that false impression was that there existed no doubt about the presence of Saddam's WMD's.

 

[maineman]

The only pathetic thing or person here is the deluded one, the one so full of partisan rancor that they can not see straight. And that would be YOU.

SO pathetic that admitting the truth is not possible, You can not have it both ways, either you can not prove Bush lied or Gore is a liar. By YOUR definition. You do not get to pick and chose cause your mad at me. MY refusal to do as you want does not let you get to ignore your own "rules" and declare Gore is not a liar. My belief has nothing to do with YOUR position on what is or is not a lie.

Gore lied about the certainty of human caused global warming in exactly the same way Bush lied about the certainty of Saddam's WMD's. Your inability to acknowledge that is pathetic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury.

"Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.

Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory."



http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

RGS: "Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury."
maineman: Bullshit!

and from this link:

"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."

again...Clinton was NEVER found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Did he lie? of course. Was he ever found guilty of the crime of perjury? no.

Bush has not been charged with a crime. But he certainly lied... he lied by making a statement that served to create a false impression... and that false impression was that there existed no doubt about the presence of Saddam's WMD's.

The definition of Perjury and the legal definition do NOT stipulate one must be found guilty to have committed Perjury. Perhaps you should learn how to comprehend what you read? You are going to parse what Bush said in order to make a partisan claim BUT defend Clinton with unproven semantics.

I will admit Bush COULD have lied. Anything is possible. But you can not prove he did so. What you claim as proof is anything but.

 

[maineman]

The definition of Perjury and the legal definition do NOT stipulate one must be found guilty to have committed Perjury. Perhaps you should learn how to comprehend what you read? You are going to parse what Bush said in order to make a partisan claim BUT defend Clinton with unproven semantics.

I will admit Bush COULD have lied. Anything is possible. But you can not prove he did so. What you claim as proof is anything but.

of course they do.... they are definitions of crimes. all citizens are innocent of crimes until proven guilty in a court of law.

the definition of the crime is merely that.... any crime must be proven.

 

[maineman]

Clinton lied...but is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

It is not a crime to make statements that serve to convey a false impressoin.... but it is a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

of course they do.... they are definitions of crimes. all citizens are innocent of crimes until proven guilty in a court of law.

the definition of the crime is merely that.... any crime must be proven.

Wrong, read the definition ans show me where it states in order to have committed a crime one must be convicted.

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.

If you speed , even if never caught, you broke the law and you committed the crime of speeding. If you murder someone, you broke the law, a conviction is not needed to break the law.

 

[maineman]

Wrong, read the definition ans show me where it states in order to have committed a crime one must be convicted.

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.

If you speed , even if never caught, you broke the law and you committed the crime of speeding. If you murder someone, you broke the law, a conviction is not needed to break the law.

innnocence of all crimes is presumed. did you miss that part?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

innnocence of all crimes is presumed. did you miss that part?

That is not part of the definition of a crime. It just determines whether you pay a price or not.

PLEASE provide the part of the definition of any crime that states you must be convicted in order to have committed the crime. I provided the LEGAL definition of Perjury, go ahead show me in there where it states a conviction is required to have committed the crime.

You want to play semantics on what is and is not a lie but then want to IGNORE the stated definition of what is Perjury.

 

[maineman]

That is not part of the definition of a crime. It just determines whether you pay a price or not.

PLEASE provide the part of the definition of any crime that states you must be convicted in order to have committed the crime. I provided the LEGAL definition of Perjury, go ahead show me in there where it states a conviction is required to have committed the crime.

You want to play semantics on what is and is not a lie but then want to IGNORE the stated definition of what is Perjury.

definitions of crimes are just that. Please show me where "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out of our legal system.

Like I said....Clinton lied, but is guilty of no crime.

Bush lied, and similarly is quilty of no crime

 

[RetiredGySgt]

definitions of crimes are just that. Please show me where "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out of our legal system.

Like I said....Clinton lied, but is guilty of no crime.

Bush lied, and similarly is quilty of no crime

Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.

And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?

 

[maineman]

Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.

And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?

I ask YOU again, are we ALL not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Therefore, isn't Clinton innocent of the crime of perjury?

THAT is a profoundly easy question.

And again... I have NOT suggested that Bush's statements about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were a crime. I have only stated that they WERE lies, in that they served to convey a false impression.

 

[mattskramer]

Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.

And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?

I agree with you on this one. I can go with it. Okay. I think that Bush lied to the people in that I think that he knew that there was doubt in the world. Some sources: letters, people, etc. suspected that Saddam did not have WMD. Yet, Bush was not going to take this into consideration or acknowledge it before the American people. Instead, he said not only that he had no doubt but also that there was no doubt.

Now, concerning Clinton, I think that he committed perjury. Yet, he was never convicted of it. Years ago, I shoplifted an empty soda bottle from inside a store so that I could return the bottle for a nickel. I was never detained. Did I commit a crime – yes. Was I convicted of it – no. It reminds me of what by brother once said about committing crime: It is only illegal if you get caught.

Still, I wonder what the worse crime was: the “lie” or the perjury. (You know me. I believe in relativity.) So I look at the consequences. Bush’s lie – which he succeeded in telling - supported the rationale to send thousands of our soldiers to their deaths too soon and unnecessarily. Clinton’s lie – which failed - just delayed his getting publicly ridiculed and possibly thrown out of the presidency. You be the judge (pun unintended).

 

[Alpha1]

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.
-------------------------------------------------
You really gotta be extra special stupid to not understand the difference between committing a crime and being found guilty of committing a crime....

MM...is getting to be a laughing stock on this board.....maybe its the mushrooms in Maine....turning his brain into a pile of shit....

 

[mattskramer]

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.
-------------------------------------------------
You really gotta be extra special stupid to not understand the difference between committing a crime and being found guilty of committing a crime....

MM...is getting to be a laughing stock on this board.....maybe its the mushrooms in Maine....turning his brain into a pile of shit....

Oh lighten up. He is not a laughing stock. He is one of the more insightful, knowledgeable and sound thinking people here. While I don’t agree with it, I see and understand MM’s perspective too. Perjury is a legal term (used extensively in law). Therefore, it would seem reasonable to think that a judge must declare an action to be perjury for there to be perjury. That is not unreasonable. We just disagree on the precise definition of perjury. I don’t think that it is limited to what a judge decides. People can commit such crimes as perjury while not being convicted of such crimes.

 

[Alpha1]

Oh lighten up. He is not a laughing stock. He is one of the more insightful, knowledgeable and sound thinking people here. While I don’t agree with it, I see and understand MM’s perspective too. Perjury is a legal term (used extensively in law). Therefore, it would seem reasonable to think that a judge must declare an action to be perjury for there to be perjury. That is not unreasonable. We just disagree on the precise definition of perjury. I don’t think that it is limited to what a judge decides. People can commit such crimes as perjury while not being convicted of such crimes.

Please spare me....insightful my ass.....]
He argues about the most inane and insignificant crap and when he gets schooled he just digs in harder....

The simple fact is that you don't need to get convicted of a crime to be guilty of committing that crime.....THATS A FACT

Notwithstanding what the meaning of is is.....
--------------------------------

 

[Alpha1]

Play MM's silly game of "Parsing The Words" .....have fun....

(lets not add or omit from the actual quotes, play fair)
====
NIE REPORT.....

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Bush statement under debate......

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------
Bush talks about only "lethal weapons".....nothing specific there....

So Bush claims intell gathered by this nation leaves no doubt about Iraq having "lethal weapons"...AS POSITIVELY STATED IN THE NIE

And Bush claims intell gathered by other governments leaves no doubt about Iraq and "lethal weapons"......
---------------------------------------------
Well ...there is no doubt that the NIE report states without question that Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons the report uses words that are definite and show certainty.........so Bush is right

But I can't vouch for intell from other governments or which governments he means....so I don't know about that one way or the other.....
---------------------------------------------

Lets hear the spin from the idiot....go MM.....

 

[Steerpike]

I think we're using both the legal definition of "guilty" and the more common definition of the word, and that is the source of the confusion.

In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court. And during the court process you are presumed innocent. If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word. Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.

As that word is used in every day parlance, though, if you did something criminal, then you are guilty of having done it.