It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wiretapping Trump residence.

page: 318
158
<< 315  316  317    319  320  321 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Lying is exactly the same as perjury. Which is why you're completely wrong. Perjury is not the same as simply lying. And in fact neither are "illegal" as you would have it. Perjury is only illegal if the intent of the falsehood is material to the outcome of any proceeding or case (and at that, only if under oath).
edit on 18-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Regardless no President has ever been declared unfit for lying, hence the opinion that he is unfit for such is nothing more than that - an opinion.


That he is currently unfit due to his lying, is an opinion. But as you said, he could be removed from office for damn near anything. If Trump continues down the path he is taking, it may become a more likely possibility that he is unfit.



What about those that those that believe he is justified in his treatment of the press and it is not undignified? Do they count? Who gave you the moral compass for all?


He was elected by a group of people that, in general, agree with his brash style. They counted on election day.

He is not justified, though, in his conduct when dealing with the press. Even if he completely disagrees with the press, the office he holds alone demands respect and dignity in any of his public interactions.



Same with the subjective term 'professional'. I think in the main he has been very professional. His campaign was executed brilliantly, his cabinet choices were excellent, his policies are spot on in my view.


I did not ask for your opinion. I gave you examples of his unprofessional approach, as you have asked for many times.



There is nothing in the law that takes these terms and assesses any behaviour associated to them as a determination that a President would be unfit. There is no precedent that suggests that these will be reasons for him being declared unfit.


I did not say there was.



I am perfectly fine with opinions that he is unfit for whatever reason, but when declarative statements are made based on whiny lists of subjective reasons, then they are begging to be called out for the BS that they are.


You call it a whiny/silly list, but you have admitted to agreeing with it, in part.
edit on 18-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Again, this is why I didn't want to address this issue. It's ridiculous.

Lying is an act. Perjury is a legal consequence based on where the lie is said and to whom it is said to. Doesn't change the fact that a lie was told.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Regardless no President has ever been declared unfit for lying, hence the opinion that he is unfit for such is nothing more than that - an opinion.


That he is currently unfit due to his lying, is an opinion. But as you said, he could be removed from office for damn near anything. If Trump continue down the path he is taking, it may become a more likely possibility that he is unfit.



What about those that those that believe he is justified in his treatment of the press and it is not undignified? Do they count? Who gave you the moral compass for all?


He was elected by a group of people that, in general, agree with his brash style. They counted on election day.

He is not justified, though, in his conduct when dealing with the press. Even if he completely disagrees with the press, the office he holds alone demands respect and dignity in any of his public interactions.



Same with the subjective term 'professional'. I think in the main he has been very professional. His campaign was executed brilliantly, his cabinet choices were excellent, his policies are spot on in my view.


I did not ask for your opinion. I gave you examples of his unprofessional approach, as you have asked for many times.



There is nothing in the law that takes these terms and assesses any behaviour associated to them as a determination that a President would be unfit. There is no precedent that suggests that these will be reasons for him being declared unfit.


I did not say there was.



I am perfectly fine with opinions that he is unfit for whatever reason, but when declarative statements are made based on whiny lists of subjective reasons, then they are begging to be called out for the BS that they are.


You call it a whiny/silly list, but you have admitted to agreeing with it, in part.


You are giving examples that you have given your opinion of and I disagree with your opinions. I see nothing undignified or unjustified in his dealings with the press. I see very little unprofessional about his approach, certainly no more or less than any other President. I certainly am not going to suggest that a President is unfit if he lies, unless all Presidents in recent times were unfit (and probably most before that).

Who gets to be right and why?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Again, this is why I didn't want to address this issue. It's ridiculous.

Lying is an act. Perjury is a legal consequence based on where the lie is said and to whom it is said to. Doesn't change the fact that a lie was told.


The entire context of the discussion was why Bill Clinton was impeached.
The original question was: Was Bill Clinton impeached because he lied.
The answer is NO. He was impeached because he committed perjury.

So no, lying is not the same as perjury in the context of the actual discussion.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Have you presented your proposal(s) to the House of Representatives yet ?

Not hard to do.




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Lying is exactly the same as perjury. Which is why you're completely wrong. Perjury is not the same as simply lying. And in fact neither are "illegal" as you would have it. Perjury is only illegal if the intent of the falsehood is material to the outcome of any proceeding or case (and at that, only if under oath).


Good lord.
The precise reason that lying is not the same as perjury is for the reasons you yourself state!


What Is Perjury?

A witness under oath commits perjury by making a statement in a court or other proceeding that the witness knows is not true.

The statement must be “material” to the subject of the proceeding, meaning that it must have some relationship to the lawsuit, investigation, or inquiry of the proceeding.

All parts of this definition are important, so let’s take a closer look at each:

Perjury only happens under oath. The witness must have vowed to tell the truth to someone who is authorized to administer the oath, such as a judge, notary public, or other official. And, the proceeding must be “competent,” that is, authorized by law. For example, a grand jury that has launched an investigation that is beyond its powers is not a competent proceeding.

Perjury requires a statement. Silence or a refusal to give a statement is not perjury (but may lead to other charges). In addition to testimony, a statement adopted in the proceeding, as when a witness authenticates a false writing while under oath, is also perjury.

Intent to mislead. The witness must know that the testimony is false and must give it with the intent to mislead the court.

Only false statements are perjury. False testimony that results from confusion, lapse of memory, or mistake is not perjury. Conflicts in testimony may be perjury if one of the conflicting statements is necessarily false (and prosecutors can prove perjury without proving which one is false).

Inconsistent statements can lead to perjury. A witness’s testimony is viewed as a whole. So, a witness who claimed he did not remember an event when questioned at one point in testimony, but who clearly recalled aspects of the event when asked later, may have committed perjury. (Inconsistency under oath is what led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.) But, where a witness’s testimony is inconsistent in a way that is of no consequence in the proceeding, that is not perjury.

Statement made in court or other proceeding. False statements made outside of official proceedings are not perjury. For example, if a witness lies to a lawyer who is taking notes in order to draft an affidavit, the witness has not committed perjury (unless she later signs the affidavit under oath with the false statement in it). Sworn, written statements submitted to courts or government agencies are statements made in a proceeding and subject to perjury laws.

Only a “material” statement can be perjury. The false statement must be capable of influencing the proceeding – that is, it must have a relationship to the subject of the proceeding. This includes a false statement that would tend to mislead or hamper an investigation. This means that a lie, even under oath, about a subject that is not material to the proceeding is not perjury. For example, falsely bragging that “I never update my Facebook page at work,” while testifying in a case having nothing to do with social networking at work, would not be a likely candidate for a perjury charge.

A material statement that is superflouos to the outcome may still be perjury. Even where false testimony does not affect the outcome of a case, the lying witness may be prosecuted for perjury. For example, suppose an ex-cop is on trial for his involvement in a gambling operation. Several witnesses have testified to his involvement, but on the stand, he falsely denies any involvement. This denial would be a material statement, even though it arguably did not affect the jury’s finding of guilt (the jury had the other witnesses’ testimony to rely on).


www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...#

Clinton was not impeached for lying, he was impeached for perjury which has specific criteria.
He most certainly would not have been impeached if he just told the press that he didn't sleep with Monica, or tweeted that he didn't if twitter was around then.

You seem to be arguing on a moral level and not a legal one. One hopes that you are not declaring a President unfit just because he doesn't follow your moral compass.
edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Again, this is why I didn't want to address this issue. It's ridiculous.

Lying is an act. Perjury is a legal consequence based on where the lie is said and to whom it is said to. Doesn't change the fact that a lie was told.


The entire context of the discussion was why Bill Clinton was impeached.
The original question was: Was Bill Clinton impeached because he lied.
The answer is NO. He was impeached because he committed perjury.

So no, lying is not the same as perjury in the context of the actual discussion.


Did Hillary Clinton LIE? Or, did she commit PERJURY when said that there were no classified documents on her home server?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
but alas it does not hold up because he was not impeached for lying.


Introvert, you moron, didn't you know that lying under oath is not lying?

Don't make the same mistake I've made.


I didn't want to get in to that part of the argument because it's absolutely absurd.

Lying is lying. Period. Lying under oath only changes the circumstances, and possible consequences, in which the lie is told.

It's still the same act of attempting to deceive.


One is illegal, the other isn't.
One has never been used to impeach a President, the other has.
Lying is not the same as perjury. Period.


Again, this is why I didn't want to address this issue. It's ridiculous.

Lying is an act. Perjury is a legal consequence based on where the lie is said and to whom it is said to. Doesn't change the fact that a lie was told.


The entire context of the discussion was why Bill Clinton was impeached.
The original question was: Was Bill Clinton impeached because he lied.
The answer is NO. He was impeached because he committed perjury.

So no, lying is not the same as perjury in the context of the actual discussion.


Did Hillary Clinton LIE? Or, did she commit PERJURY when said that there were no classified documents on her home server?


It was determined as not perjury I believe, or she would have been charged.
edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
One hopes that you are not declaring a President unfit just because he doesn't follow your moral compass.


Point me to the post that I made that declared the President unfit at all.

My sole interest in this particular round of nonsense from you, was that you have no more moral highground to call out someone else's post as being laughable because they deemed the President unfit for office...you simply don't qualify as authoritative enough.

With respect the the rest of your wall of text, you never cease to amaze me with how adept you can be at utter misinterpretation.

Until lying under oath doesn't contain the word "lying" and until lying actually takes on another meaning, then lying is also perjury.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: MOMof3

:: Masochism ::



Fifty shades of Orange.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
One hopes that you are not declaring a President unfit just because he doesn't follow your moral compass.


Point me to the post that I made that declared the President unfit at all.

My sole interest in this particular round of nonsense from you, was that you have no more moral highground to call out someone else's post as being laughable because they deemed the President unfit for office...you simply don't qualify as authoritative enough.

With respect the the rest of your wall of text, you never cease to amaze me with how adept you can be at utter misinterpretation.

Until lying under oath doesn't contain the word "lying" and until lying actually takes on another meaning, then lying is also perjury.


I have every right to laugh at people who deem the president unfit because they don't like him.
You yourself deemed the President unfit based on your silly list of personal gripes.
Here is your post from earlier:


Why don't you go on then, and define for us all, what criteria precisely should be used to deem someone unfit for office?

Because here is what we already have so I would like to know what additional requisites are necessary: A liar - Check Irresponsible - Check Undignified - Check Unprofessional - Check Morally Barren - Check Unable to relate to the average US Citizen - Check Inexperienced as a politician - Check Hired key personnel that he allows to break the law to suit their needs - Check __________________________________________________________ So please, if you would answer ONLY what I have asked you, without additional commentary, what more precisely would be required to make him unfit for office?


Emphasis mine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for reading 'walls of text', I can see you are not interested in actual definitions that would explain things to you. That does actually confirm the reason you are so clueless about your own country's laws and history - too lazy to research and learn.

By the way, perjury doesn't contain the word lying, if that strange criteria is important to you. Words have meaning and without the meaning they are irrelevant.
edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: MOMof3

:: Masochism ::



Fifty shades of Orange.


57




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Good grief.

This really isn't difficult.

One of these is correct:



... the other is irrational:




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Cute, but irrelevant.
Your question was whether Bill Clinton was impeached for lying.
The answer is no.
He was impeached for perjury.
The basic truth of that isn't going to change and your diagrams fall over when you apply a dimension for legality.
With that dimension you get complete separation.

Good try though.

edit on 18/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust
a reply to: Sillyolme
a reply to: alphabetaone

Not really if people would understand the exchange instead of only hearing what they wanted.

He did not lie / commit perjury. What part of Trump campaign and Trump surrogate do you guys just not understand?




Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However, prosecutions for perjury are rare. In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)

Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding.

Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to commit perjury, is itself a crime.


As for Clinton -

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[17] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote)

edit on 18-3-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I haven't asked any questions. I made a statement.

Clinton was impeached for lying. Specfically, perjury.

The "legal dimension creates complete separation" ??? Horsepucks. How deep did you have to reach to pull that out?

Perjury IS lying. It is a specific act of lying under oath.

This fact is as clear as night and day, up and down, black and white.

The extent to which you have taken this absurdity trying to negate that fact reveals your inability to accept what is obvious.
edit on 19-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You don't even know what the discussion is about.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Another example of Trump NOT being irresponsible and NOT being unprofessional






Trump has visited Mar-a-Lago for five weekends so far and has spent nearly a quarter of his time there since taking office. The cost associated with his visits have been a cause for concern, as have national security issues, after one guest posted a photo of the aide responsible for carrying nuclear launch codes to Facebook.





I'm glad it's only MY silly opinions or this would actually be scary.


edit on 19-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You know what else? No one can fly anything when he's in town.
www.nbaa.org...

At least Obama only came around here once a year.

edit on 3/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
158
<< 315  316  317    319  320  321 >>

log in

join