Relax, Boortz is just a comedian. It's not like anyone eligible to vote is dumb enough to get their information from him and not check it against the facts.That would be as likely as somebody still posting here that BC was convicted of perjury.

Oh, wait, they're here every day. Never mind.

And this is what Boortz, himself has to say about this:  "

Ok … here’s the deal. On Wednesday Jack Kielly, the National Secrity Writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote a nationally syndicated column that led off with this paragraph:

“’Scooter’ Libby will serve as much time in prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury as Bill Clinton served for lying under oath to a federal grand jury.”

That statement is factually correct. The way I conveyed to my listeners what Jack Kelly had written was not. I used the word “convicted” in referring to Clinton. It is certainly true that Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. Clinton agreed to a plea bargain with independent counsel Robert Ray in which he admitted that he gave misleading testimony to the grand jury. That’s the politically correct way of saying “I lied.” In exchange for the admission, and Clinton’s acceptance of a five-year suspension of his law license in Arkansas and the payment of $25,000 in attorney’s fees, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton for perjury.

Are you following this? Clinton admitted to “misleading testimony”, paid a fine, accepted other punishment, in exchange for not being charged with perjury. By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court later took away Clinton’s privileges as a result of his admission.

The fact remains: Libby and Clinton both lied before a federal grand jury. Neither spent any time in jail. Liberals see that as good for Clinton, bad for Libby. Conservatives see it exactly the opposite.

So … there you go. Clinton wasn’t “convicted.” He just admitted it.

My bad."

It appears that MMFA has gone ape because Boortz misquoted Jack Kielly on the air.  Boortz even admits this.  And he also points out half of the truth:  Clinton admitted lying under oath.  Moreover, the other half, "U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright [held] him in contempt of court for his "willful failure" to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit."

Being held in contempt by a Judge is the same thing as being convicted.  It is a crime to disobey a court order or engage in criminal misconduct in a courtrom, the crime of Contempt.  If a Judge fines anyone for contempt, that is a criminal penalty imposed for having committed the crime of contempt.  Judge Wright fined Clinton for Contempt, therefore he was CONVICTED of the crime of contempt.  In Clinton's case, his act of contempt was to willfuly lie under oath before the Judge [Perjury].

MMFA is stretching the truth and Boortz is right in that Clinton was convicted.  He would not have been required to pay a criminal fine if he had not been convicted.

Being convicted of perjury is not the same as being found in contempt of court for lying about a non-material matter.

Boortz was never right about this, and his "correction" was fatally flawed as well.

Boy that is weak.  Boortz admits he was wrong (although in a weaselly way) and you go after MMFA on some nonsense about contempt "convictions", which wasn't even what Boortz was talking about.

I noticed that Boortz also referred to a "plea bargain" with regards to a civil matter.  No such thing exists.

Clinton was impeached, not for sex, not for lying, but for WINNING. The whole thing was political to begin with. The Republicans insisted it was all about the rule of law, but they didn't mind one bit that the Lewinsky case was based on illegally obtained wiretap evidence.

You make an excellent point!  The right wingnutz began calling for President Clinton's impeachment after he was elected and even before he was inagurated!  Go back and look at the record.

Now, of course, so many of those rapid rightwingers (are you listening Sam Brownback) who had all those nasty things to say about him are eating crow over Scooter Libby...

And I also remember that the Propaganda Parrots insisted that Clinton was not "legitimate" because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote (because of Perot) . Hmmmm....and President Numbnuts didn't even get a plurality of the popular vote. That makes him.....what, by their logic?

His name is President Bush, and he won 51% of the vote in 2004, which in case you didn't know is a majority. Clinton couldn't even get a majority in EITHER election.

Do you really think bush (lowercase intentional) would have gotten 51% in 2004 if they had actually allowed everyone to vote in Ohio?  And if so, then WHY did they NOT let everyone vote in Ohio?

His name is Liar. His name is Theif. His name is Killer. His name is Torturer. His way is Satan.

Rino, how is that in any way relevant?  Last time I checked, a majority of all votes cast is not necessary to win a presidential election in the United States.  Please elaborate so that the rest of us can appreciate your insightful contribution to this discussion.

Exactly right, and that's all I heard in 2000 was that Gore won the popular vote.  Like you said, who gives a rip because that's not the system.

I was trying to point out the hypocricy of those on the left who always point out that Bush didn't win a majority of the popular vote in 2000. Maybe now you can tell your liberal friends to quit complaining about the 2000 election.

Rino, the distinction is that Gore got more votes than Bush.  Clinton didn't get a majority because Perot got 20%!

It's not the same thing, and so it's not hypocrisy.

I'd be happy to, but I'm afraid that I don't know anyone who argued that Gore won because a majority of votes were not cast for Bush.  I do know some people who felt it significant that Gore won more votes than any other candidate, but even those people recognized that this fact alone was insufficient to claim that Gore won the election. 

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think Nerzog's point is just that previous claims against the legitimacy of Clinton's presidency -- because he didn't win a majority of votes -- are called into question if Bush's presidency is regarded as legitimate.

"His name is President Bush, and he won 51% of the vote in 2004" --rino hunter

No he didn't.  Bush won 50.73% of the popular vote.

It's called rounding up.

Looks like an attempt to exaggerate as well.  Claiming votes he didn't get and all.

"Clinton was impeached, not for sex, not for lying, but for WINNING"

And he barely even won. He couldn't even win a majority of the vote in EITHER election, despite the fact that he was running against a very unpopular president in 1992 and a terrible Presidential candidate in 1996.

Yes, nearly 6 out of ten people voted AGAINST him in 1992.

1996 Presidential election, Terrible opponent? you must mean opponents... right? Are you forgetting Ross Perot 10% of the popular vote is nothing to sneeze at. I'd say thats pretty darn good.  And Clinton got 49.2... Technically not a majority but ohhhh so close... oh well...

Not having the majority/popular vote sure didn't stop Bush from "winning" the 2000 election, a measely 47.9% with the third party candidate ol ralphy boy getting a bleek 2.7%.

  Funny.... you didn't mention anything about that....

clinton is infinitely more popular now, and before he left office, than bush at this point.

Clinton was brought up on charges of war crimes before the Hague but the case was dismissed because the US was outside the court's jurisdiction. And Starr went after him for having a young legal mistress. America was never told about the war crimes charges but EITHER party. This is back when I watched network tv....the US news was void of the story. Guess Repubs were cool with that, Clinton escaping serious charges. Rah, rah, rah America, right? It don't matter who does the killing....it'll be the other guys' turn eventually.

Psychocracy

These Rightwinger's BELIEFS are strongly held, and they become angry at those who disagree with them. They KNOW what the facts are, and they form their conclusions and opinions based on what they "know". They see ironies and injustices based on these FACTS that they know to be true. Their entire ideology is built upon formulating policy decisions based on the realities they observe, the problems they perceive, and relative comparisons with parallel examples in the news.

Just one problem with all this; They get their "facts" exactly, precisely, absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG. They don't know what the hell they're talking about. They are our current Emily Litella's, except they never have the presence of mind to consider saying "never mind". The are willfully and arrogantly IGNORANT, and the are PROUD they have their "facts" screwed up. As far as they're concerned, it's TRUE if they SAY it. Period.

And thus the Rightwing MISInformation machine chugs along, like a filthy clunky steamroller crushing across a field of kernels of TRUTH, mashing and destroying as they go.

Oh, by the way, RIGHTWING RADIO is so damn popular, because there are rightwingers out there in audience land who want to hear the stuff that LIBERAL MEDIA won't tell them ... you know, LIES and MADE-UP stuff, smears and hatred. THAT'S what draws the audience!! 

Yeah, well said Tex...

There really is something Orwellian about our nation's great talk radio imbalance.

A large chunk of conservatives has just got the stupids.  It's sad, and kind of scary.

They are spoiled overbearing children, they are truly monsters from the id.

Facts?!

Of what importance are facts when you're the TalkMaster?!

Facts??? Don't you know that facts have a well-known liberal agenda?

 (h/t) Stephen Colbert

We now have solid intelligence that facts are now in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

90% of talk radio is controlled by right-wing excreta like Neal Boortz.

--Houston, we got a problem!

Exactly...and this is just further evidence that these guys know they're lying...and are paid to lie. The notion that they have achieved dominance of talk radio through "free market forces" is, frankly, another Right Wing fantasy.

I know it's a little off-topic, but the Right Wing fantasy to which you refer is really quite hilarious. First of all, the same righties who cry "liberal media bias" also like to boast about the 90%/10% Conservative slant in talk radio. I suppose their rationale is that it is the MSM that is liberally biased, and that the 9 to 1 edge in talk radio is necessary to counter the MSM left-wing propaganda. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

But the "free market forces" nonsense is the most hysterical. Studies have repeatedly shown that Americans are more liberal than conservative on almost every issue of importance, from the economy, the role of government, social issues, etc. This leads to some interesting questions:

1. What exactly are these "free market forces" that are driving all these liberals to demand more conservative talk radio? Just because we live in a free market economy, that doesn't mean every observable trend can be attributed to the free market.

2. If all these liberals are listening to conservative talk radio, why isn't the content of conservative talk having an effect on the listeners' political ideology? Obviously, this isn't the case. Fortunately, more conservatives than liberals listen to talk radio in the first place, so Rush, Hannity, et. al. are mainly preaching to the choir.

So what would cause a politically liberal nation to air 90% conservative programming? The answer is pretty simple. Conservatives are friendly to big business. The major media outlets as well as their sponsors, ARE Big Businesses. The conservative playbook of limited government, corporate tax breaks, deregulation, anti-labor, privatization, etc. tend to play well with big business. The liberal platform is pretty much the opposite. So is it any wonder why major media outlets and corporate sponsors are not so eager to pour money into programming that preaches an anti-corporate message? For example, Wal-Mart is not going to sponsor a program that tells its listeners to boycott Wal-Mart (a viewpoint I'm certain exists among the liberal press).

So this "free market" nonsense is utterly ridiculous. If anything, this 90% margin should wake people up to the extent to which big business has obtained too powerful a role in the media. I don't know that the fairness doctrine is the best solution, but something should be done to at least make liberal radio more viable. The talent exists and the audience exists, but clearly that isn't always enough.

The Corporate Media and their Repugnant bedfellows are already mounting persistent attack upon the advocates of greater access and diversity in our media, whether the proposed change of re-instituting a useless and unenforceable "Fairness Doctrine" - a true boon for the useless members of the legal profession who cannot lie fast enough to run for Congress; or the more powerful aspects of MORA, the re-institution of limits on ownership and reach for media outlets. Rep. Hinchey could probably use some words of support now that every public figure is running from the recent assaults on consideration of the Fairness Doctrine in that Corporate (Repugnant) Media. I have burdened him enough already with my radical proposals for far stricter limits, and immediate forced divestiture as replacements for the Fairness Doctrine.

Yeah, don't expect any trust-busting to happen any time soon. Not with this President, and, unfortunately, not with this congress.

Progressive talker Ed Schultz has made it clear that he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.  He contends that rightwing talk dominance can be attributed to one thing: ownership oligopoly.  There is no limit to the number of printed publications, websites and TV channels, but there is a limited number of FCC radio licenses in each market.

American media is not very innovative....it's all copy cats. Let's make new shows. Let's kick their arse in the ratings.

So, Boortz is a [link to www.grhof.com] title="blocked::[link to www.grhof.com] ACHIEVEMENT AND LEGACY NOMINEES.htm">nominee for the Georgia Radio Hall of Fame 2007 Career Achievement Award. 

Those stupid peckerwoods are probably tuning him in on their CB radios.

Yee-haw!

Disbarment

In a separate case, Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him. In October 2001, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and, facing disbarment from the high court as well, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.

---Wikipedia (Italics mine)

Obviously, Boortz makes the assumption that Clinton's deal constituted a guilty verdict. Federal prosecutors should have pursued the issue, and he (would have) should have been found guilty of perjury.

Clinton proved himself to be a truly stupid man. 

Ah no since he said THIS

No sir, that's an impeachment. We're talking about a criminal trial, sir. The verdict was guilty.

So either someone needs to cough up some evidence of this apparantly secret trial or Booore is full of it and I dont want to cast aspersions on your abilities as a prophet but since according to findlaw materiality IS an element of the crime of perjury the outcome you are so cavilier about is FAR from certain.

You got two things materially wrong.

Clinton wasn't disbarred. He voluntarily agreed to give up his license for 5 years. That's a suspension, not a disbarment.

Secondly, lying in a non-material matter is not the same thing as perjury. Not all lies are created equal, and Clinton's lies, while an undeniable problem, were not perjury since they were not in regard to a material matter. The court case that was happening was thrown out of court. Lying about his marital misconduct was not relevant to any criminal or civil matter because the case disappeared! 

Classic conservative strategy: If you have no real arguement, just make stuff up, rewrite history. No big deal.

The bogus comparisons to the Clinton affair made me realize just how much times have changed in less than a decade. Does anyone actually think for a minute that George W. Bush would testify under oath for any deposition, trial or hearing? There is absolutely no chance. He would ignore any subpeona, issue some executive order, or claim that his testimony might contain "classified national security secrets" that would put Americans in danger.

Maybe the Bush administration has learned a lesson from Clinton: You can't lie if you don't talk.

Der Bungle makes swiss cheese of your theory daily: he speaks, he lies, and then he lies about the lies. So much for the "school of hard knocks" and consequent behavior modification.

Well, I meant "talk" not in the general definition of "moving one's mouth and making language come out." Rather I was referring more to the word "talk" in the mob sense, as defined at dictionary.com. 

Talk - to give or reveal confidential or incriminating information: After a long interrogation, the spy finally talked.

Of course you did - but if I cannot take your statements totally out of context, twist and deform them to my need, then respond to that hypothetical, I would have so little to say - and I reeeeeeally needed to slam Bungle just one more time (that rotten liar!)

You have been the unwitting agent of such vast relief that henceforth you may be known as the Duke of ex-Lax!

Don't mention it.

...Republican Congressman Henry Hyde made some surprising comments Thursday on the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton.

He now says Republicans may have gone after Clinton to retaliate for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

...

Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon's impeachment.

"I can't say it wasn't...

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/clinton_impeachment_hyde_abc_yanks_422.htm

What gives the above even more truth is the fact that 28 Republicans that screamed law and order back then are deadly silent about Libby's get out of jail free card.

Before the wingers start an avalanche of rebuttals, you may want to acknowledge that Nixon was not actually ever impeached.  Articles of impeachment were drawn up, but he resigned before he could actually be impeached.

Additionally, he was indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., but was pardoned by Ford (even before any trial, as I recall).  I guess Republican misuse/abuse of executive pardon power is nothing new...

This discussion is based on an outdated, bourgeois, concept of 'truth'

Simply comporting with the facts is not by itself enough to make a statement 'true'.

A 'true' statement is one that advances the interests of the Party, and its leading role as Vanguard of the Revolution. Boortz' statement possesses this new, revolutionary kind of truth.

A statement that does not advance the interests of the Party is not 'true'.

Did you notice that the country was being run by frickin' Maoists?

And sailing the seas depends on the Helmsman!

This country is run by real pirates, has been for decades. Pirate capitalism.

Very good catch, Davis.

Neocon TACTICAL belief was inspired largely by the writings to V.I. Lenin. They sought to incorporate the ruthless, practical tactics of the furthest nether-reaches of the extreme left... owing to their relatively long-term success in the establishment & maintenance of political power in the Soviet Union. They thought... given enough support from the corporate MSM... that they could well be capable of duplicating a similar ascendancy & one party monopoly of power in America.

Ultimately, the f*ckers failed both here & there. 

inspired BY the writings of V.I. Lenin

Stephen Colbert once explained why he loves Wikipedia.  It's because you can state what ever you want, and if enough people agree with it, it becomes true. 

 What more would you expect from a half-senile, balding, somewhat overweight 62 year old High School Graduate! Take a good look at his picture, who in a proper frame of mind, would wear a Canary Yellow, Miami Vice type coat, out in public in 2007? Boortz looks like he just stepped off a 4 day, Frisco to New York cross-country trip, on a Trailways Bus. The only thing missing from that picture, is a parrot sitting on his shoulder, or a big earring, stretching his ear lobe to his shoulder! 

 Give the old geezer a break, it's hard on a man's psyche, at his age to know , that his future consists only of, endless days and nights on Trailways Buses, and looking at a reflection of loudmouth, racist loser in mud puddles, as he hoofs it from one mission to the next!

Oh Boortz is nailed on this one.  He's about as wrong as one gets.

If I only listened to him, I'd have called and pointed it out.   Many thanks to MMFA for correcting these misstatements.  Like all the rest, I don't listen to him so I wouldn't know when he makes these mistakes. 

I hope my liberal/progressive friends have a great time making disparaging generalizations regarding conservatives, pundits, the right wing, etc., etc. in this thread. 

I love freedom of speech. 

:-)  

At the very least, we "liberals" do have the advantage that language cannot yet express things sufficiently bad as to be untrue when applied to this administration, its constituencies, its adherents, its defenders.

Perhaps, in another universe, a language more capable is being developed. Then we will finally be able to state precisely how abyssmal is the infestation of our plane by these creatures, and how evil the creatures themselves.

Is it worse if Neal Boortz was intentionally lying to his audience, or if Boortz believes that a non-existent criminal trial of Bill Clinton took place?

He's either STUPID or he's a LIAR.  Neither speaks well of him.

I couldn't care less what Boortz says...Bill Clinton's words speak for themselves.

 - "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" - Bill Clinton

 - Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him. In October 2001, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and, facing disbarment from the high court as well, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November. - AP

Plea bargains and cop outs are the reasons he was not cited for committing perjury...additionally, 50 U.S. senators voted that he obstructed justice.

With those facts in mind, it is laughable that Clinton would offer criticism of the Libby deal...however, I'm not interested in comparing the two cases...I'm only pointing out that Bill Clinton admitted that he lied under oath...an inescapable fact. 

I'm sure that's what Boortz meant, but simply argued "convicted" for the sake of brevity.

Tra la la boom si eh,

Wes has no case today

That's why all he can say

Is look Bill Clinton's way!

I'm looking Clinton's way because that is the topic of the thread...

Wes

You're also suggesting that Clinton WOULD have been convicted of perjury had he not copped a plea. This is a very unlikely outcome to any further legal action. More likely is the Clinton would have been found not guilty, as a result of misconduct by the Special Persecutor's office, as this was a classic case of entrapment.

Entrapment is when law enforcement agents set out to entice a suspect into committing a crime that THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE LIKELY TO HAVE COMMITTED! John DeLorean is a clear example of this sort of prosecutorial misconduct. Kenneth Star unquestionably CONSPIRED with Paula Jones attorneys to lead Clinton into a perjury trap by offering up to them supposedly confidential information... attained by the illegal tapings Monica Lewinski... in a CIVIL TRIAL... & DESIGNING for them a series of questions with the sole purpose of ENTICING him into falsely answering them in order to keep the information secret from his family.

Do you get it? Starr wasn't attempting to EXPOSE a crime that had ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED! Rather, he was attempting to lure Clinton into committing a crime by causing him to attempt to KEEP HIS PRIVATE LIFE PRIVATE! This illegitimate attempt to CAUSE a breach of  law is the very soul of ENTRAPMENT!

Even if you REFUSE to get it, the majority of Americans certainly do. 

Any lawyer worth his salt would have easily exposed Starr & his supposed case for the partisan hackery that he unquestionably committed. Clinton's case would have been quickly dismissed. It was only the understandable desire to put all of this vile, partisan bullsh*t behind him that motivated Clinton into TEMPORARILY surrendering his law license to these political zealots.

So, if a criminal acquitted of a crime admits at least part of it, does that mean he is convicted?

In Bill Clinton's case...it means he is an admitted liar...and a disbarred attorney.

And Libby is a traitorous sychophant who puts his loyalty to the Republican Party dick cheney, and george w. bush (lowercase intentional) above the good of the country .

AND a convicted FELON.

Republicans are soft on crime.

Libby wasn't even the one who was the original leaker. He simply couldn't remember a few details of what happened several years ago. That's quite different from Bill Clinton, who EXPLICITY lied to a grand jury, forced those who worked for him to lie as well, and filed several false affidavits. The whole Libby trial was nothing more than a political witch hunt. The prosecuter already knew before hand that Libby wasn't the one who leaked the information, but he went ahead with the case anyway to try to trip Libby up and get him to say something that wasn't completely true.

And Nixon wasn't the one who actually conducted the break-in.  Big deal.

Of course, we could take this to mean that Rino wishes that the original leaker be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  That would be nice, but I have my doubts.

I love reading Rino's posts... the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen get so boring after a while.

It makes no more difference who leaked first than who was the first to rob a specific bank the second bank robber is STILL a bank robber. So he just forgot a few details like whether HE told Tim Russert Plame was a CIA agent of if Russert told HIM. Right. Weak, ludicrous repititions of rightwing talking points long ago shot down to appologize for leaking the name of a covert CIA agent and then LYING about it committing both perjury and obstruction of justice but IOKIYAR

No, the original leaker was Darth Cheney.  He sent Libby out to do the dirty work, which he did, and lied about.  He also leaked to Judith Miller prior to Novak's talk with Armitage.  The only reason rightwingers can keep shilling the canard that Libby didn't leak first is that Milller, the only person to do time in this sordid mess, didn't publish the leak.

How foolish of me.  Of course you can keep flogging the phony pony.  Facts mean nothing if they get in the way of your narrative.

RH,

Judith Miller said that Libby leaked her name to her.  The reason no charges were brought for the leak or leaks themselves was because Libby lied and obstructed justice to the point that Fitzgerald could not bring charges.  The judge in the case called the evidence "overwhelming."

If you want to find fault with the justice system in this case, fault Bush.  He appointed the prosecutor who he praised all along the way.  The judge who presided over the case was a Bush appointee and the two judges who denied his bail request were Bush appointees.  The CIA thought she was covert and they asked for the investigation.  Why the outrage over the conviction?  Why not the outrage over what happened?

He simply couldn't remember a few details of what happened several years ago.

The prosecutor already knew before hand that Libby wasn't the one who leaked the information, but he went ahead with the case anyway to try to trip Libby up and get him to say something that wasn't completely true- Rino

Rino, honey you've been drinking that kool-aid way to long. If Libby couldn't remember, since he was testifying under oath, he should have said "I CAN'T REMEMBER". That mean old prospector wouldn't be able to "trip" Libby up IF HE TOLD THE TRUTH!

I agree completely, Wes, but does it make him a convicted felon?

However, he lied under oath in a civil proceeding, about something that was not material to the case. In civil cases, lying under oath has to be on a topic materially related to a case--and Monica Lewinsky was not materially related to the Paula Jones suit. The fact is that Bill Clinton was never indicted in criminal court for perjury. He was impeached over it, and acquitted.

You're correct...Bill Clinton lied under oath and then admitted it.

The "material to the case" argument is impotent and overblown. The reasons why he did not have to face the music were because he cut deals to avoid prosecution.

"Not convicted" or "not material" still leaves him as a sows ear...not a silk purse. 

No it is NOT overblown it is just inconvienient to your case that to claim PERJURY the lie must be material to the case. Did Clinton lie under oath? Yes, was it perjury? NO

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1924/&invol=28056

Bill Clinton admitted he was a liar...and he did that in order to short circuit future prosecution...including perjury.

All the amateur Perry Masons can debate perjury or not...I'll just stick with his own admission that he lied...I don't need a perjury conviction to know his dishonesty. 

I agree a liar and dishonest absolutly what has NOT been shown, you know like Boortz falsely claimed is that he was a perjurer. All lies are not perjury

I'll agree 100% with that statement.

And Libbey DID commit perjury!

Thanks very mush, Wes, for confirming reality.  

It may be 'impotent' or 'overblown' (NOT a felicitous term when talking about Lewinsky), but still true--as your retreat into metaphor would suggest. 'Sow's Ear?'"Silk Purse?' Clinton was trapped into testifying by Republican judges who ruled that a sitting President could be sued in civil court--which had never yet happened in the history of the republic. The case itself was a joke (remember Bill's 'distinctive feature' that Paula Jones said was there, and turned out not to be?) and was dropped as soon as it had performed its function.

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. It was not only not illegal, it was not relevant to his conduct of the presidency, and it was not relevant to the Paula Jones suit. If he had admitted it, the case would still have collapsed of its own putrid weight.

And the Republican Party and the MSM would be screaming for him to resign. We know this because that's what they did when he admitted the affair later.

A 'Sow's Ear?' Are you saying 'he's not so great!' Well, maybe not.

But a perjurer? No.

"Boortz" - the sound a fart makes in a bathtub.

Why aren't we also talking about Bush 1's pardons, going out the door,after losing to Clinton?

And Bush is putting together a panel to study why the world hates us so much,  Geez I wonder why?

Oh god not this again.

MMFA, this is such a technicality it is ridiculous.

Clinton lied under oath about a non-material fact, which still can get you disbarred.  He didn't get prosecuted and convicted of perjury.

As a lawyer, Clinton would have been disbarred since he got Monica to lie for him and submitted a false affidavit, and lied under oath.

However, instead of going through a full hearing in front of the disciplinary commission, he simply allowed his name to be removed from the roll of attorneys.

If you talk to any lawyer, they will say that Clinton committed perjury, even considering all the points I made above.

I've talked about it with more than one lawyer. You're wrong again.

Is that because he didn't know what the meaning of the word "is" is?

No, its because he was never convicted of perjury.

Yeah, you're right. It's such a fine line between "convicted of a felony in a criminal trial" and "not convicted in a criminal trial".

"Technicality" -- good point.

“Clinton lied under oath about a non-material fact, which still can get you disbarred.”

The judge ordered him to testify truthfully about the questions being asked and he failed to do.  Subsequently, his license was suspended for disobeying a judge’s order.

Is "failing to testify truthfully" the same as "lying" in liberalspeak or is there a difference?

They are to me. Is the diffference between being CONVICTED by a jury and NOT being convicted by a jury a difficult thing to differentiate to conservatives? How about the fact that all lying under oath does NOT constitute perjury? Is that too hard for conservatives to understand? Say Clinton lied you get no argument from me, I was never a big fan anyway

To those Scooteraters posting here...Is Scooter a convicted felon or not? Is Clinton a convicted felon or not? If Scooter lied about a non-crime an should be let go...should Clinton be UN-IMPEACHED? I asked this in other posts and have not received any answer.

I'll answer after Scooter's appeal.

Chicken

That's cool, Hils coming to town to save the world anyway since Al Gore won't run.  Eight more years, sweet.

I wasn't inferring a difference between the two.  I was trying to point out that you can legally lie under oath (something that's irrelevant to case) without it being perjury and that's what Clinton did.  But during the line of questioning about Lewinsky the judge ordered him to testify truthfully and he did not.  His license was subsequently suspended for disobeying that order and he was almost disbarred.

Yeah, prosecution and conviction are such technicalities. I mean why even bother with the rule of law and all that other legal mumbo jumbo?

No he didnt and no they wont once again you have no idea what you are talking about and just spewing what you WISH were true. Findlaw says you are flat out wrong.

Nope, as a lawyer, I can say you are definitely wrong.  It is NOT perjury unless it is material to the case.  Talk around all you want, but that's the fact.

Oops, in case anyone is still reading, my comment was meant to be a reply to mrblogspottie, not the others.  (and apparently, I was not alone in pointing out how wrong he was)

Boortz is just doing what these salivating pinheads do best. Pull facts out their anus and expect their ditto parrots to spread their BS spin at the next water cooler chat. That is until MMFA came along and started to spoil all their fun. Curses!!!

Clinton killed people for corporate profit, Bush kills people for corporate profit. What's perjury compared to that? Boy, Americans can get distracted. Focus pocus.

    The difference between the two cases (Clinton and Libby) is interesting. Both apparently lied under oath. Libby was tried, found guilty and sentenced to 30 months. Clinton avoided prosecution through 'deals' cut with prosecutors. Someone above asked if Clinton should be 'unimpeached.' I think a better question would be, 'Should Libby have been prosecuted?' 

    I've posted the 2000 Who's Who in America listing on this site before where Valerie Plame is clearly identified as the wife of Joe Wilson. If Clinton's lies were not perjury because they weren't material to a crime, how could Libby's be - where there was no crime committed?

"I've posted the 2000 Who's Who in America listing on this site before where Valerie Plame is clearly identified as the wife of Joe Wilson. If Clinton's lies were not perjury because they weren't material to a crime, how could Libby's be - where there was no crime committed?"

It's clear that you don't even understand the basic facts of this story. Either that, or you're intentionally trying to muddy the water with complete nonsense. Obviously people knew that Plame was Wilson's wife. That wasn't the big secret that was leaked. Do you really not understand that?

The difference between the two cases (Clinton and Libby) is interesting. Both apparently lied under oath. Libby was tried, found guilty and sentenced to 30 months. Clinton avoided prosecution through 'deals' cut with prosecutors. Someone above asked if Clinton should be 'unimpeached.' I think a better question would be, 'Should Libby have been prosecuted?' 

    I've posted the 2000 Who's Who in America listing on this site before where Valerie Plame is clearly identified as the wife of Joe Wilson. If Clinton's lies were not perjury because they weren't material to a crime, how could Libby's be - where there was no crime committed?

 Okay one at a time.  Clinton avoided prosecution because what else could you prosecute him for?  What he did could not be considered perjury.  First Ken Starr didn't bother telling Clinton's lawyers about the evidence they had gathered over the lewinsky matter.  This was a total lapse of ethics on Starr's part and he should have been disbarred.  The lewinsky matter had no relevance to the Jones case that is why the judge struck it from the case.  So when Clinton lied about it he was lying about information that was illegally obtained that had no bearing on the actual case.  The jones case was also dismissed as Jones didn't state a claim for which relief could be granted. 

As for the whose who list I too have seen that clipping from the whose who list and I wonder why you think it is wrong for Joe Wilson to state his wife's name and that he is married and that she was an energy consultant.  This information was pretty much public knowledge.  Nowhere did he state that his wife worked for the CIA or that her company was a front group.  So trying to claim that Joseph Wilson outed his own wife just shows the level of stupidity that some people stoop to to justify a criminal action.

Boortz started off his 10:00 hour (EST) by spelling myrmidon,"MIRMIDON"!

 He's so full of himself he can't even read the spelling of the word, correctly!