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.
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.
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.
There’s three problems with that argument, and I don’t want to bore you with text so I’ll keep this short.
This isn’t true.
Even if it were true, that definition of “sex” wasn’t relevant to the statements he made on TV.
I don’t believe his version of events.
In other words, Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.
For more detail
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.
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.
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.
not to Congress, and not under oath. Not technically.
Under oath during a deposition, yes he did lie. I just explained how he lied.
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.
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?
But not in the technical aspect as the republicans laid out in their definition while he was under oath.
Look, you lost this argument the instant you began it, and every time you respond, I’m just gonna reply telling you that. Forever.
Give. It. Up.
You’re wrong.
He did lie in the technical aspect as the Republicans laid out in their definition while he was under oath. I’ve already demonstrated that. You haven’t made any argument other than “nuh uh” and you want to dance around like you won.