Did Clinton really lie?

[JoS]

Did Clinton really lie under oath?

Correct me if I am wrong but it was all over whether or not he lied when he said he did not have sexual relations with Monica (or Paula I cant remeber). I believe the outcome of the largest investigation into audltry was he had oral sex with her. Later he went and said it depends on what yoru definition of sex is. Now we all may think of this as ridiculas, but is it really that obsurd.

There are people who feel sex is only when the penis penetrates the vagina and that any other act is not sexual intercourse.

sexual intercourse

n : the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur [syn: intercourse, sex act, copulation, coitus, coition, sexual congress, congress, sexual relation, relation, carnal knowledge]
The last definition on the page.

A study published in 1999 in the Journal of the American Medical Association examines the definition of sex based on a 1991 random sample of 599 college students from 29 states. Sixty percent said oral-genital contact did not constitute having sex.
Full article.

So then the question isn't whether he lied really under oath or not, it is what is the true definition of sex. Just because adults feel oral sex is sex doesnt mean that it is. Just because kids feel it isnt doesnt mean it isnt. So is it really fair to say Clinton lied under oath when it may simply be the case his definition of sex is different from that of Ken starr or other adults?

[Pandaman64]

I never liked clinton, but I find it a bit sad for him that all he'll ever be known for is the monica incident and the kosovo thing.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

His intention was to mislead - isn't that bad enough?

[Me-Patch]

At 5/2/06 10:42 AM, Pandaman64 wrote: I never liked clinton, but I find it a bit sad for him that all he'll ever be known for is the monica incident and the kosovo thing.

Well what the hell else did he do in 8 years besides setting our economy on the path to recession and putting a band-aid over the middle east that they just picked right off anyway. Id'e rather be remembered for getting a hummer from a chubby chick.

[JoS]

This topic isnt about his economuic policies or who is at fault for a recession, this is about his impeechment and if he really did lie or not.

[LazyDrunk]

I don't recall catholic priests offering "depends on your definition of sex"

Usually when you bust a nut all over a chicks dress, you've had sex.

Should be simple enough.

[Me-Patch]

At 5/2/06 10:53 AM, JoS wrote: This topic isnt about his economuic policies or who is at fault for a recession, this is about his impeechment and if he really did lie or not.

Well it's a matter of interpretation, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal guidline as to what is considered sex and what isn't. If scientificaly sex is only considered pengina than he didn't lie. Either way Clinton was engaging in sexual activity in the work place and he should have got a fucking pay cut or something at least, but he's a slimey bastard and he slipped out of it like usual.

[JoS]

Unless you can show me somewhere that it is written that there cannot be a relationship between co-workers in the White House (regardless of marriage) there is no basis for a pay cut or any kind of action against him. Calling him a slimey bastard just goes to show your aprtisan hackery. You acknowledge since there is no set in stone definition of sex that he technically did not lie, which means he did not commit any crime.

[mayeram]

At 5/2/06 10:59 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I don't recall catholic priests offering "depends on your definition of sex"

Usually when you bust a nut all over a chicks dress, you've had sex.

Should be simple enough.

Catholic priests, as are most extreemists, are not good people to go to for the explanation of anything. Other then their religion's beliefs.

[JoS]

At 5/2/06 11:07 AM, mayeram wrote:

At 5/2/06 10:59 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I don't recall catholic priests offering "depends on your definition of sex"

Usually when you bust a nut all over a chicks dress, you've had sex.

Should be simple enough.

Catholic priests, as are most extreemists, are not good people to go to for the explanation of anything. Other then their religion's beliefs.

Yes but catholic priests dont set the defintion of sex. I bet a porn star would say that oral sex isnt sex, does that make it the legal defintion? What if you masturbate or have a hand job and bust your nut on a women. Is that sex. Sex is not like murder (or atleast oral sex) wher eyou have a set and agreed upon definition. Its a grey area with conflicting views. Kind of like abortion, where some people see it as murder whiel tohers dont. If a women testified that she did nto murder her baby but did have an abortion woudl we consider that lying unde r oath?

[LazyDrunk]

Hey JoS, how is me sticking my dick in a females mouth for the purpose of sexual pleasure, NOT sexual relations?

[MoralLibertarian]

Sexual relations is defined as either sexual intercourse or sexual activities between two people, but remember that perjury is defined as the willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath. Whether Clinton actually lied can be argued but in the end is irrelevant, since he still provided misleading and incomplete testimony under oath.

[LazyDrunk]

It's not like Clinton was being investigated for any other sexual ... encounters ... or anything serious like that. Just a woman claiming sexual misconduct.

No biggie, she's just a woman anyways, and she never really mattered ever.

[LazyDrunk]

Meh, forgot link... oh well

Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin on September 17, 1966, in Lonoke, Arkansas) was a former Arkansas state employee who sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed without proceeding to trial, since Jones was unable to demonstrate any damages; the possibility of an appeal was disposed of by Clinton's paying Jones an out-of-court settlement of $850,000. He was also fined $91,000 for a contempt of court citation for evasive and misleading answers."

[Jizzlebang]

lie or no lie, he was a good president..

[JoS]

At 5/2/06 11:17 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Hey JoS, how is me sticking my dick in a females mouth for the purpose of sexual pleasure, NOT sexual relations?

Maybe it was just dirty and needed to be cleaned?

[LazyDrunk]

I don't think her tonsils work nearly as well as a Brillo pad. But given the choice, I'd take the warm wet hole anytime :)

I'd probably lie about it to my friends if she was really a heifer, but not if under investigation for allegedly harrassing another inferior employee. Clinton talks smoother than Bush, but he was just as dumb and arrogant.

[WolvenBear]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Among sexual relations are: oral, vaginal, and anal sex. He didn't say he didn't have intercourse, he said he had no relations. He said he had never been alone with her. He said he was not CURRENTLY seeing her. So yes, JoS, he lied. A lot.
That being said, the oath is also "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which is in place to take out lies of omission and lies by misleading.

He committed perjury. Would you like to debate the other charges too? The witness tampering perhaps? Or maybe the suborning perjury?

[Desert-Drifter]

At 5/2/06 10:48 AM, The_Tank wrote:

Id'e rather be remembered for getting a hummer from a chubby chick.

lol genius. :)

[Altarus]

Clinton mislead when he says he did not have sexual relations, but he lied when he said he was never alone with her.

[JoS]

At 5/2/06 02:12 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Clinton mislead when he says he did not have sexual relations, but he lied when he said he was never alone with her.

Maybe someone was watching?

[LazyDrunk]

At 5/2/06 02:51 PM, JoS wrote:

At 5/2/06 02:12 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Clinton mislead when he says he did not have sexual relations, but he lied when he said he was never alone with her.

Maybe someone was watching?

No.

If someone were watching, and didn't testify, probably because of threats from the president, then that'd be really fucked up.

[ShinDenjin]

well... I never really cared about the guy, much less his wife and daughter. but admitting that he lied to us about getting his dick sucked took alot of balls on his part. I liked him more than most presidents because he was full of shit and he admitted it. So, just let him be... so his impeachment is in the books now, at least he wasn't removed from office...

[fli]

he lied...
But the question remains:

"Who gives a fuck?"
It is, after all, not a governmental affair, but a personal family one.

Next question:
"Why is nobody conducting investigations in a few of Bush's scandalous affaris that effects this nation and the world... including the pretext's of the Iraqi War?"

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/2/06 04:44 PM, fli wrote: he lied...
But the question remains:

"Who gives a fuck?"
It is, after all, not a governmental affair, but a personal family one.

This argument gives me a headache everytime I hear it. Let's apply this standard to every President, every worker, every CEO, etc. Everytime a woman takes legal action against a pervert or a sexual abuser, say, "No, the ___ shouldn't be fired, it's a personal family issue!" It's absurd.

Besides, what are you complaining about? Clinton's legacy was saved by the impeachment precedings.

Next question:
"Why is nobody conducting investigations in a few of Bush's scandalous affaris that effects this nation and the world... including the pretext's of the Iraqi War?"

Because regardless of whether he recklessly rushed into war or not, it's nearly impossible to prove that he intentionally lied, misled, or withheld the truth from the American people. It's all rampant speculation.

Then again, if liberals win back the house and senate by some miracle, I fully expect them to attempt to unsuccessfully attempimpeach George W. Bush.

[Gunter45]

At 5/2/06 10:48 AM, The_Tank wrote: Well what the hell else did he do in 8 years besides setting our economy on the path to recession and putting a band-aid over the middle east that they just picked right off anyway. Id'e rather be remembered for getting a hummer from a chubby chick.

Well, the conflicts, such as East Timor and Kosovo, where he promised he wouldn't send ground troops. Then, of course, the illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese. You also had the nuclear secrets debacle.

So yeah, it's safe to say that he has a pretty sweet deal for only being remembered for getting sucked off in the Oval Office.

[fli]

Oh yes Rooster--

Blowjob > War...

Once again,
You've proven yourself infallible.

[The-Dran]

They didn't ask Bill Clinton if he had sex with an intern, they asked if he had sexual intercourse with her. And he said no.

It's not a matter of interpretation or definition. It's a fact that he didn't have sexual intercourse with her, he had blowjob from her. That's a difference. I wish people would understand that and besides just because if the President had lied, doesn't mean he was a bad president.

I mean take the worst president of all time, Grant. Now that was a horrible drunk president. And he didn't lie at all, he just drank trillions and trillions of gallons of alcohol throughout his entire 2 terms.

And just because he did something with a woman that was sexual, doesn't mean he was a bad president either.

Take Eisenhower, he had an affair with his driver. Or take FDR whom was in an affair throughout most of his time in office.

I don't understand why people have to be so stupid. Shouldn't we be more concern about the policy the president is taking us into than the crap that involves his personal life?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 5/2/06 05:07 PM, fli wrote: Oh yes Rooster--

Blowjob > War...

Once again,
You've proven yourself infallible.

It's a common defense mechanism to misrepresent the opposition, especially when you're an idiot. Read carefully what I said. No where did I say that a blowjob was a greater sin than starting a war.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/2/06 10:38 AM, JoS wrote: Did Clinton really lie under oath?

Yes. He admitted to having "sexual relations."

Sexual relations are not limited to penitrative sex.