quote: Politico has edited their hit piece now for the third time.

Politico by your own admission is liberal trash, yet you seem to care so much what they have to say. Get over it.
_________________________________________________________________________

Wrong.
Politico, caught in a liberal attack, is backtracking and trying to save some semblance of legitimacy.
Too late.

quote: Politico has edited their hit piece now for the third time.

Politico by your own admission is liberal trash, yet you seem to care so much what they have to say. Get over it.
_________________________________________________________________________

Wrong.
Politico, caught in a liberal attack, is backtracking and trying to save some semblance of legitimacy.
Too late.

Oh but you do care. So, so much. Yet anyone who reads Politico is an idiot. Politico is entirely staffed by HuffPost's rejects. But you seem to care so much about what they say. Wonder what their ad revenues off you are this week. Politico thanks you for your support.

_____________________________________________________________________

Wrong again. But I must say you are consistent. Consistently wrong.

Your glasses are on backwards.

It is the liberals here that glommed onto the false Politico story and took it as fact.

I simply pointed out that Politico is a far-left political, discredited attack site and their posting of a bogus hit-job was their standard practice.

This is almost funny.
The liberals, with only a political hit piece from a discredited left-wing attack site, are claiming that Dr. Carson lied. Even better, they call this “fact”.

Y'all are the very definition of "low-info voter".

Exactly which fact are you disputing, (a) the claim he made in his book, (b) the fact that he was not accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, or (c) the definition of a liar?

_________________________________________________________________________

Your point (b) is a misrepresentation. He never applied to West Point so the rest of your post is your usual B.S.

The fact that the liberals here take anything from Politico as fact proves you lack the ability to see anything objectively or that the piece is a political attack. It is what Politico does.

Exactly!! You admit that he didn't apply for West Point. If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was. Therefore he lied. The only way that he couldn't have lied would be if he (a) never actually said that he was accepted into West Point with a full scholarship (but he did say this in his book), or (b) if he was actually accepted into West Point with a full scholarship. Since you just admitted that he didn't apply for West Point, and therefore couldn't have been accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, then I don't see how you can possibly say that he didn't lie. This is a clear case. There is ambiguity here. Unless he can show us an acceptance letter from West Point or unless West Point has a record of accepting him, then he lied.

_______________________________________________________________________

" If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was."

Dr. Carson never said has was accepted.

Are you so consumed by your liberal bias you have to lie?

He said he was offered a scholarship. Now he says that it was more informal, as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied. Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. When I was young I visited Cape Kennedy and met an astronaut who told me if I worked hard I could be an astronaut when I grew up. I guess I could claim I was accepted into NASA's program too.

This is almost funny.
The liberals, with only a political hit piece from a discredited left-wing attack site, are claiming that Dr. Carson lied. Even better, they call this “fact”.

Y'all are the very definition of "low-info voter".

Exactly which fact are you disputing, (a) the claim he made in his book, (b) the fact that he was not accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, or (c) the definition of a liar?

_________________________________________________________________________

Your point (b) is a misrepresentation. He never applied to West Point so the rest of your post is your usual B.S.

The fact that the liberals here take anything from Politico as fact proves you lack the ability to see anything objectively or that the piece is a political attack. It is what Politico does.

Exactly!! You admit that he didn't apply for West Point. If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was. Therefore he lied. The only way that he couldn't have lied would be if he (a) never actually said that he was accepted into West Point with a full scholarship (but he did say this in his book), or (b) if he was actually accepted into West Point with a full scholarship. Since you just admitted that he didn't apply for West Point, and therefore couldn't have been accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, then I don't see how you can possibly say that he didn't lie. This is a clear case. There is ambiguity here. Unless he can show us an acceptance letter from West Point or unless West Point has a record of accepting him, then he lied.

_______________________________________________________________________

" If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was."

Dr. Carson never said has was accepted.

Are you so consumed by your liberal bias you have to lie?

He said he was offered a scholarship. Now he says that it was more informal, as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied. Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. When I was young I visited Cape Kennedy and met an astronaut who told me if I worked hard I could be an astronaut when I grew up. I guess I could claim I was accepted into NASA's program too.

______________________________________________________________________

“He said he was offered a scholarship” - On the “scholarship” part, numerous military screeners who evaluated prospects for admission to the military academies during the time period in question are explaining how this misrepresentation really happened. When it was explained to the prospect that their college education at an academy would be free they would say “it is as if you would be getting a full scholarship”.

“as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied.” – That is your assumption.

You can try and twist words and make up your own meaning but that simply makes you like Politico – a liar.

But do keep trying. You sound much more like Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.

[Edited on 11/7/2015 by Muleman1994]

This is almost funny.
The liberals, with only a political hit piece from a discredited left-wing attack site, are claiming that Dr. Carson lied. Even better, they call this “fact”.

Y'all are the very definition of "low-info voter".

Exactly which fact are you disputing, (a) the claim he made in his book, (b) the fact that he was not accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, or (c) the definition of a liar?

_________________________________________________________________________

Your point (b) is a misrepresentation. He never applied to West Point so the rest of your post is your usual B.S.

The fact that the liberals here take anything from Politico as fact proves you lack the ability to see anything objectively or that the piece is a political attack. It is what Politico does.

Exactly!! You admit that he didn't apply for West Point. If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was. Therefore he lied. The only way that he couldn't have lied would be if he (a) never actually said that he was accepted into West Point with a full scholarship (but he did say this in his book), or (b) if he was actually accepted into West Point with a full scholarship. Since you just admitted that he didn't apply for West Point, and therefore couldn't have been accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, then I don't see how you can possibly say that he didn't lie. This is a clear case. There is ambiguity here. Unless he can show us an acceptance letter from West Point or unless West Point has a record of accepting him, then he lied.

_______________________________________________________________________

" If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was."

Dr. Carson never said has was accepted.

Are you so consumed by your liberal bias you have to lie?

He said he was offered a scholarship. Now he says that it was more informal, as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied. Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. When I was young I visited Cape Kennedy and met an astronaut who told me if I worked hard I could be an astronaut when I grew up. I guess I could claim I was accepted into NASA's program too.

______________________________________________________________________

“He said he was offered a scholarship” - On the “scholarship” part, numerous military screeners who evaluated prospects for admission to the military academies during the time period in question are explaining how this misrepresentation really happened. When it was explained to the prospect that their college education at an academy would be free they would say “it is as if you would be getting a full scholarship”.

“as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied.” – That is your assumption.

You can try and twist words and make up your own meaning but that simply makes you like Politico – a liar.

But do keep trying. You sound much more like Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.

[Edited on 11/7/2015 by Muleman1994]

You know all about being a habitual liar, being one yourself. Funny how every single person on this forum considers you the biggest liar on this forum, but somehow you don't see that. By the way, if there is anyone on this forum that doesn't see Muleman as the biggest liar on this forum, feel free to correct me here and I will stand corrected.

Lies, more lies and damn lies from that guy.

When the liberals are caught lying they throw a collective fit.
Group think personified.

When the liberals are caught lying they throw a collective fit.
Group think personified.

The only people caught lying here were Ben Carson and you.

The racist liberals exposed again:

“Safe Negro”: Why Liberals Are Scared of Ben Carson
Posted On 04 Nov 2015

Over the last week, we’ve seen liberals make some despicable comments about Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson. The same libs who cry “dog whistle” every time a conservative says anything that might be in the same hemisphere as a racial remark are throwing their colorblindness to the wind as they desperately try to cling on to their divisive narrative.

“The really important thing [about] people supporting him,” said L. Joy Williams, the president of NAACP’s Brooklyn chapter, “because it’s ‘Oh, there’s another black man commenting negatively against the president and I don’t feel comfortable in doing so because of the race factor.’ So here’s someone who can do it.”

In other words, white people have been stifling their criticisms of Obama for fear that they might be labeled racists. But here’s the glorious answer – a black conservative who can say all these racist things and be immune to the consequences. Carson’s like a superhero, empowered not by the yellow sun but by his darker shade of skin.

Williams went on to say that Carson represented a “safe negro” that white conservatives could support.

Then, in response to a story in the National Review that pointed out the left’s obvious hypocrisies when it came to racial politics, Brian Beutler of the New Republic made this snide remark on Twitter:

Goldberg genuinely believes that tokens confound the racial critique of U.S. conservatism.

So that’s the other side of it. Whites are enraptured by this free pass to be as racist as they want, and anyone who thinks this proves that America is making progress is delusional.

They just can’t get past the color of a man’s skin. Or any minority classifications, for that matter. This is why Hillary Clinton didn’t think it was ridiculous to say that the biggest difference between herself and Obama was that she was a woman. To her, that is the biggest difference and it would be so even if she had a drastically different take on his policies. To these liberals, nothing can trump these superficial characteristics.

It’s amazing (and a little amusing) the lengths they’ll go to in order to protect their worldview. How vicious they will be to a black man who doesn’t toe the line. They despise any minority who embraces conservatism. It’s the ultimate betrayal.

Why? Well, the Democratic Party can only thrive by preaching a message of division. Blacks vs. Whites. Women vs. Men. They use these divisions because they’re (largely) fixed.

Immutable. You can’t change your race, so you can’t get a fair shake in White America. And they gradually spread that philosophy around until it encompasses nearly everything and everyone. Being poor, then, becomes an identity and not a circumstance. The only solution? Change the rules of the game.

So when a black man comes along as the living proof that there are no obstacles that can’t be overcome through self-discipline and determination, they are forced to scramble. They cannot afford to let Ben Carson become the standard. So they insult him and they insult anyone who supports him. Don’t listen, black people! It’s a trick! You can’t succeed like he did! White people are just using him to fool you into thinking they aren’t racists!

This narrative, in an ironic way, actually winds up making Carson an even more attractive candidate. Not so we can prove to these idiots that we aren’t racist, but so we might have a chance to undo the terrible damage this narrative is causing to our country.

This is almost funny.
The liberals, with only a political hit piece from a discredited left-wing attack site, are claiming that Dr. Carson lied. Even better, they call this “fact”.

Y'all are the very definition of "low-info voter".

Exactly which fact are you disputing, (a) the claim he made in his book, (b) the fact that he was not accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, or (c) the definition of a liar?

________________________________________________________
5_________________

Your point (b) is a misrepresentation. He never applied to West Point so the rest of your post is your usual B.S.

The fact that the liberals here take anything from Politico as fact proves you lack the ability to see anything objectively or that the piece is a political attack. It is what Politico does.

Exactly!! You admit that he didn't apply for West Point. If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was. Therefore he lied. The only way that he couldn't have lied would be if he (a) never actually said that he was accepted into West Point with a full scholarship (but he did say this in his book), or (b) if he was actually accepted into West Point with a full scholarship. Since you just admitted that he didn't apply for West Point, and therefore couldn't have been accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, then I don't see how you can possibly say that he didn't lie. This is a clear case. There is ambiguity here. Unless he can show us an acceptance letter from West Point or unless West Point has a record of accepting him, then he lied.

_______________________________________________________________________

" If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was."

Dr. Carson never said has was accepted.

Are you so consumed by your liberal bias you have to lie?

He said he was offered a scholarship. Now he says that it was more informal, as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied. Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. When I was young I visited Cape Kennedy and met an astronaut who told me if I worked hard I could be an astronaut when I grew up. I guess I could claim I was accepted into NASA's program too.

If you graduated from Yale i probably would assign some credibility to your claims.

This is almost funny.
The liberals, with only a political hit piece from a discredited left-wing attack site, are claiming that Dr. Carson lied. Even better, they call this “fact”.

Y'all are the very definition of "low-info voter".

Exactly which fact are you disputing, (a) the claim he made in his book, (b) the fact that he was not accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, or (c) the definition of a liar?

________________________________________________________
5_________________

Your point (b) is a misrepresentation. He never applied to West Point so the rest of your post is your usual B.S.

The fact that the liberals here take anything from Politico as fact proves you lack the ability to see anything objectively or that the piece is a political attack. It is what Politico does.

Exactly!! You admit that he didn't apply for West Point. If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was. Therefore he lied. The only way that he couldn't have lied would be if he (a) never actually said that he was accepted into West Point with a full scholarship (but he did say this in his book), or (b) if he was actually accepted into West Point with a full scholarship. Since you just admitted that he didn't apply for West Point, and therefore couldn't have been accepted into West Point with a full scholarship, then I don't see how you can possibly say that he didn't lie. This is a clear case. There is ambiguity here. Unless he can show us an acceptance letter from West Point or unless West Point has a record of accepting him, then he lied.

_______________________________________________________________________

" If he didn't apply for West Point then he couldn't have been accepted with a full scholarship like he said he was."

Dr. Carson never said has was accepted.

Are you so consumed by your liberal bias you have to lie?

He said he was offered a scholarship. Now he says that it was more informal, as in somebody told him you could get in if he applied. Sorry, but that isn't the same thing. When I was young I visited Cape Kennedy and met an astronaut who told me if I worked hard I could be an astronaut when I grew up. I guess I could claim I was accepted into NASA's program too.

If you graduated from Yale i probably would assign some credibility to your claims.

________________________________________________________________________

2112 is just caught up in the liberal spin machine.
He continues to assert the false claims published by the discredited Politico. He has to because he has never read Dr. Carson’s book.
This is nothing new from 2112. He misrepresents what someone says and then uses that falsehood to criticize.
Ignorance of the facts is purely within his prevue. Recognizing his bias is obvious. I would bet not one the haters posting on this subject has ever read Dr. Carson’s book but they all think they know something.

The upside is that Ben Carson did graduate from Yale and became a world-class surgeon who has saved many lives.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

Because of that conviction Clinton voluntarily gave up his law license. Of course The Bar Assoc. was about to take it away but Clinton was trying anything at the time to save his reputation.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by Muleman1994]

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

No, he wasn't. If he had been, he would have been removed from office. Was he removed from office?

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.
_________________________________________________________________________

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

No, he wasn't. If he had been, he would have been removed from office. Was he removed from office?

________________________________________________________________________

Are you unaware of his impeachment trial?
It is obvious you are unaware of many things.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.
_________________________________________________________________________

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

No, he wasn't. If he had been, he would have been removed from office. Was he removed from office?

________________________________________________________________________

Are you unaware of his impeachment trial?
It is obvious you are unaware of many things.

Apparently you are unaware that he was acquitted by the Senate. Add that to the long list of things you are unaware of. At least this time you are just ignorant and not lying.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.
_________________________________________________________________________

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

No, he wasn't. If he had been, he would have been removed from office. Was he removed from office?

________________________________________________________________________

Are you unaware of his impeachment trial?
It is obvious you are unaware of many things.

Apparently you are unaware that he was acquitted by the Senate. Add that to the long list of things you are unaware of. At least this time you are just ignorant and not lying.

_______________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant son.
Keller asserted the Bill Clinton was not convicted of lying under oath. He was.
The conviction was the basis of the impeachment proceedings.

From the previous two responses, apparently Carson didn't lie because he graduated from Yale. I guess people who graduate from Yale never lie. I'll keep that in mind the next time you claim that Hillary lied, since she graduated from Yale too.

__________________________________________________________________________

Note the difference son: Hillary is a proven liar. Might be a family thing because her husband was convicted of lying.

That must mean that you are related to the Clintons, son.
_________________________________________________________________________

BTW, Clinton was never convicted of lying. You, on the other hand, just got caught lying again.

[Edited on 11/8/2015 by jkeller]

_______________________________________________________________________

Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath dumba$$.

No, he wasn't. If he had been, he would have been removed from office. Was he removed from office?

________________________________________________________________________

Are you unaware of his impeachment trial?
It is obvious you are unaware of many things.

Apparently you are unaware that he was acquitted by the Senate. Add that to the long list of things you are unaware of. At least this time you are just ignorant and not lying.

_______________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant son.
Keller asserted the Bill Clinton was not convicted of lying under oath. He was.
The conviction was the basis of the impeachment proceedings.

I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between being convicted and acquitted. Until you understand the difference there is no use having a conversation with you.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again dumba$$.

Bill Clinton was convicted or perjury which became the basis of his impeachment by The House of Representatives.

The Senate Democrats, to whom lying under oath means nothing, saved his presidency.

The basics are taught to students but apparently you didn't understand it.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a crime inal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again dumba$$.

Bill Clinton was convicted or perjury which became the basis of his impeachment by The House of Representatives.

The Senate Democrats, to whom lying under oath means nothing, saved his presidency.

The basics are taught to students but apparently you didn't understand it.

Clinton was acquitted in Feb. 1999. The judge found him in contempt in April 1999. So how could the contempt charge have caused the impeachment. Now make another ironic comment about others education.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

Jkeller is correct. Clinton was held in contempt of court but was never convicted of anything - ever. The contempt of court required a fine and temporary suspention of his law license. It is not at all the same thing as a conviction. Not only was it not a conviction, but he has no criminal record at all.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

Jkeller is correct. Clinton was held in contempt of court but was never convicted of anything - ever. The contempt of court required a fine and temporary suspention of his law license. It is not at all the same thing as a conviction. Not only was it not a conviction, but he has no criminal record at all.

_______________________________________________________________________

Then why was Bill Clinton impeached by The House of Representatives and barred from practicing law before The Supreme Court?

Why did Bill Clinton need a presidential pardon?

None of this matters much. Bill and Hillary Clinton are proven liars.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

Jkeller is correct. Clinton was held in contempt of court but was never convicted of anything - ever. The contempt of court required a fine and temporary suspention of his law license. It is not at all the same thing as a conviction. Not only was it not a conviction, but he has no criminal record at all.

_______________________________________________________________________

Then why was Bill Clinton impeached by The House of Representatives and barred from practicing law before The Supreme Court?

Why did Bill Clinton need a presidential pardon?

None of this matters much. Bill and Hillary Clinton are proven liars.

Bill Clinton was not pardoned because he didn't need to be. He was acquitted. You can make up all the "facts" you want to, be you are not looking very smart right now.

You really are a f*ucking idiot.

Look it up son:

Clinton was Found Guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones Case

Problem with discussing with libs- they'll deny something- you prove it, then it's "so what."
Update: CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE - by Judge Susan Weber Wright holding that Bill Clinton lied in testimony in a way that was intended to obstruct the course of a legitimate court proceding, the Paula Jones case. In otherwords, Clinton lied under oath and those lies were material to the trial - the standards needed to prove perjury.

The case never went to trial and it was a civil, not a criminal case. Wrong again.

_______________________________________________________________________

Judge Susan Weber Wright's conviction of Bill Clinton is a matter of public record and was the basis of the impeachment proceeding against him.

Get informed junior.

There are two types of contempt. The first is disrespect to the judge and the court. The second is if the judge believes the person is not being honest about what he presented to the court. Clinton fell under the second definition. This is not a conviction of any charge as Clinton was never charged with perjury in that court. He was charged with perjury by the Senate and he was acquitted.

This is all covered in basic civics classes in grammar school. Now why don't you attack other people's education. The irony is awesome.

Jkeller is correct. Clinton was held in contempt of court but was never convicted of anything - ever. The contempt of court required a fine and temporary suspention of his law license. It is not at all the same thing as a conviction. Not only was it not a conviction, but he has no criminal record at all.

_______________________________________________________________________

Then why was Bill Clinton impeached by The House of Representatives and barred from practicing law before The Supreme Court?

Why did Bill Clinton need a presidential pardon?

None of this matters much. Bill and Hillary Clinton are proven liars.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Impeached means charges were brought against him. However, the Senate acquitted him of the charges in the actual trial.

He did not need nor did he ever recieve a presidential pardon.

[Edited on 11/9/2015 by 2112]