Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday that according to lawyers hired by Congress, “at this point, there’s not a specific crime that’s been committed” by President Joe Biden in the impeachment probe against him.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I want to stress that I could not care less about Clinton’s sexual relationships. It was a bullshit partisan witch hunt, and everyone involved was a piece of shit.

    But Clinton did lie about the nature of his relationship and his conduct. He should never have been asked the questions, and the entire investigation was a waste of time, but Clinton was under oath when he lied.

    Perjury requires that the lie be material to the case, and I think you could argue that none of the testimony was material to any legitimate investigation. So if you want to say it wasn’t perjury, I won’t argue with you.

    But his defense (and it seems like your argument, too) was to quibble over rhe words “sexual” and “is,” because he wasn’t at the time of the deposition engaged in coitus. “It wasn’t sexual on my part because she only touched my penis with her mouth” is a stupid fucking argument. “The nature of our relationship is strictly profession because we have stopped fooling around” is also a stupid fucking argument. Those were both lies, and I think it’s absurd to defend them given that we’ve survived four years of President Trump, and we’re staring down the barrel of a potential second term of that shitbag.

    Our leaders are not perfect. They’re not even good people. Most of them are dipshits, panderers, and crooks. Trump is worse than any of them, and represents an existential threat to the Republic. It’s good to acknowledge their flaws and criticize the leaders we support, because unwavering support is how you get Trump in the first place.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You can argue that he was dishonest, sure, and that he’s a slimebag, but he didn’t, by the definition set up by congress themselves, lie to congress. He out-lawyered them and out-maneuvered them, yet they smeared him and impeached him anyway. Because that’s what they set out to do, and not even the facts were going to stop them.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        He was dishonest but he didn’t lie? I think you’re being dishonest with yourself.

        There is no law that differentiates between a lie and dishonesty. He did not outmanoeuvre or out-lawyer anybody. He convinced five Republican Senators from Northeastern states to vote not guilty on both the perjury charge and the obstruction of justice charge. Do you really think that it was because they were persuaded by his legal arguments? Or is it more likely that polling in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island indicated that the voters there opposed conviction?

        His statements were false, he knew they were false, and he was under oath. It’s not “high crimes and misdemeanors” and I agree with your assessment of the intent of the GOP investigating him. I didn’t think he should have been impeached at all, much less convicted, and I wrote a letter to my Senator, Arlen Spector, telling him as much. I’m not delusional enough to think that my letter persuaded the Senator to vote “not proved” but I would guess it was probably about as persuasive as Clinton’s bullshit defense.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          The republicans set a very narrow definition for the word “sex”, and by their definition, he didn’t lie.

          Now you can post as many walls of text expressing your dissatisfaction with that, but it doesn’t change the facts.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            There’s three problems with that argument, and I don’t want to bore you with text so I’ll keep this short.

            1. This isn’t true.

            2. Even if it were true, that definition of “sex” wasn’t relevant to the statements he made on TV.

            3. I don’t believe his version of events.

            In other words, Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

            For more detail

            1. Two of the three criteria for sex were sticken by the judge during the deposition for being overly broad. The remaining narrow criteria was, verbatim,
            1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

            The definition says “any person” not just Lewinsky. She had contact with his genitals, so they were engaged in sex. To suggest that she was engaged in sex and he was not is a lie.

            1. Outside the deposition where that overly narrow definition of sex was relevant, he looked into a camera on TV and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He did have sexual relations with that woman. That was a lie.

            2. Lewinsky claimed Clinton groped her during their encounters. That is, by the narrow definition, sex. He said he didn’t touch her at all, and she just sucked his dick. Have you ever had your dick sucked, or sucked a dick? His version of events does not ring true, and given the conflicting testimonies, I’m not inclined to believe the guy that I know is a liar.

            You’re right that facts don’t change. Clinton did lie about his extramarital affairs. Denying facts is something conservatives do. Don’t be like conservatives.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Clinton did lie about his extramarital affairs

              not to Congress, and not under oath. Not technically.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  No, he didn’t tho.

                  It’s history, and this is getting boring. He didn’t technically lie. You can post as many walls of text as you like, but you can’t change what happened.

                  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    He did lie in every meaning of the word, and pretending he didn’t is some boomer head-in-the-sand bullshit.

                    He said he didn’t touch her breasts, genitals, buttocks, or thighs while she was blowing him. She said he did grab those parts of her body while she was blowing him. He smoked cigars that had been inside of her, but he never touched her? Not once? Not a smack on the ass or a titty squeeze?

                    Do you really believe that?

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      “It wasn’t sexual on my part because she only touched my penis with her mouth” is a stupid fucking argument.

      then the people asking the question should have defined it such that oral sex counted. You don’t get to choose one meaning when you ask the question and then another meaning when you report the answer. Bill Clinton is a piece of shit but they asked if he put his penis in her vagina and he said “no” because he didn’t.