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: 319
158
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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.


LOL....and here I thought "chemtrails" (contrails) conspiracy theories were a thing of the past now that the ill informed armchair atmospheric scientists had moved on to another site....waiting for trumptrails to make it's debut.

But honestly, it must get annoying.
edit on 19-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



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).


You will not hold a president to the same or higher criteria you see fit for the media?

I've seen you complain about the lies the media tells, but you do not find the lies a president tells to be undignified, unjustified or unprofessional?

Are you being silly, or hypocritical?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:33 AM
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.


You can't perjure yourself unless you lie.

Like I said, you've gone past the point of being absurd.

How did Clinton commit perjury if he did not lie?
edit on 19-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

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



I addressed the issues.. Stop deflecting.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


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.

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

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



I addressed the issues.. Stop deflecting.



No one has been talking about Jeff Sessions in a hundred pages.

Stop wasting screen space with interminable quotes. Stop spamming. Post a link and short summary. T&C.
edit on 19-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


You can't perjure yourself unless you lie.

Like I said, you've gone past the point of being absurd.

How did Clinton commit perjury if he did not lie?


But you CAN lie and not perjure yourself


Anyway, that was not the question.
The only absurdity is that you think two things are the same just because one of them includes the other.

Lying is not the same as perjury.

Clinton perjured himself because he lied under oath.
Spot the words 'under oath'. Without them no such impeachment process would have occurred.

It's, you know, what makes perjury different from just lying.

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

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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).


You will not hold a president to the same or higher criteria you see fit for the media?

I've seen you complain about the lies the media tells, but you do not find the lies a president tells to be undignified, unjustified or unprofessional?

Are you being silly, or hypocritical?


So if i think the media is unprofessional then I must also think Trump is unprofessional???

Why? Because you say so?
What if i have different criteria to you to make such assessments?

Try not to project your opinions onto me.
Thanks.

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He is a good reference point to the current discussion though... I think you should agree that he did nothing wrong, after all lying is not a crime and as you believe lying is the same as perjury then that is not a crime either.... Right?

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Er, yes you DID ask a question.



Was he impeached for lying? That's the point.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like I said the only absurdity here is that you continue to believe that lying is the same as perjury.

Being a subset of something does not make it the same.
How would you not understand that?

More importantly how would you not understand the actual context of the discussion, which used Bill Clinton's impeachment as precedent for a President being declared unfit for office to suggest lying constitutes a reason?

It doesn't. Bill Clinton was not impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying under oath... Perjury.

Despite the mental gymnastics and diagrams, that fact remains... And i have already cited the impeachment documents to prove it.

So, no Trump tweeting about Obama is not grounds to declare him unfit for President, as there is zero precedent for such and no sign anywhere of lying being an impeachable offence.

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So, no Trump tweeting about Obama is not grounds to declare him unfit for President, as there is zero precedent for such and no sign anywhere of lying being an impeachable offence.


As usual, you are (deliberately?) missing the point. It is not Trump's lying that makes him unfit for office, it is the fact that he actually seems to believe that the falsehoods he spouts are true. There is too much at stake for the most powerful man on Earth to be delusional.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So, no Trump tweeting about Obama is not grounds to declare him unfit for President, as there is zero precedent for such and no sign anywhere of lying being an impeachable offence.


As usual, you are (deliberately?) missing the point. It is not Trump's lying that makes him unfit for office, it is the fact that he actually seems to believe that the falsehoods he spouts are true. There is too much at stake for the most powerful man on Earth to be delusional.


I know that lying has no precedent for declaring a President unfit for office. That actually IS my point, so I don't think I missed it.


As for him believing his lie (which is speculation), what precedent is there for declaring the President unfit for office because he believes a lie? That is an even thinner argument.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


As for him believing his lie (which is speculation), what precedent is there for declaring the President unfit for office because he believes a lie?


A lack of precedent simply means that there will be a first time.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


As for him believing his lie (which is speculation), what precedent is there for declaring the President unfit for office because he believes a lie?


A lack of precedent simply means that there will be a first time.


Potentially yes, so you can hold an opinion but a declaration that Trump is unfit because he lied is absurd as there is zero precedent for it. It would be no different than saying he is unfit for the Presidency because he had an affair. It would have no basis in reality.

We could all make silly lists of what we believe should be grounds for declaring a President unfit, just because we don't want said President in the job.
edit on 19/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
ive rather enjoyed uk trying to hammer home his definitions of perjury and lying.
wow......
at least when it comes down to it youre opinion dont mean #......i take comfort in that



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Put up or shut up time. Do you think that tweeting at 3 AM that your predecessor tapped your phone and declaring him "sick" is the act of a healthy mind?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
ive rather enjoyed uk trying to hammer home his definitions of perjury and lying.
wow......
at least when it comes down to it youre opinion dont mean #......i take comfort in that


You are right, opinions don't mean #. Especially silly ones about why a President is unfit for office.
But the definitions of perjury and lying are not the same. That we can't change, no matter how hard anyone tries in order to create precedent for silly claims about fitness for office.

Here is a rather interesting article, which includes:


To secure a conviction on a charge of perjury it is not enough for the prosecution to show that a witness has lied in court, they also have to prove the evidence they gave was ‘material’ and ‘relevant’. As Judge Burns told the jury, “not every lie amounts to perjury”. For example, if a witness tells an untruth about the colour of shirt a defendant was wearing on the night of an assault that is not perjury, unless the colour of the shirt was important in terms of identification. In short the false testimony given by the alleged perjurer has to matter, it can not just be trivial or irrelevant.


But... but...but. how can this be???! I am being told that Perjury is the same as lying???


blogs.spectator.co.uk...#

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



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Just posting this link ...www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Put up or shut up time. Do you think that tweeting at 3 AM that your predecessor tapped your phone and declaring him "sick" is the act of a healthy mind?


3AM tweets making an accusation are a sign of insanity? Well i never. Thanks, doctor.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

but you cant commit perjury without lying....you know this...
so whats your problem? why are you wasting time trying to argue this.....im curious

all perjuries are lies but not all lies are perjuries....


now im getting sucked in

thanks



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 316  317  318    320  321  322 >>

log in

join