Two people lied under oath to Congress - Clinton and Oliver North.Are they equally guilty?

Question

Or is North less guilty because he was a Republican?

I was trying to be a little impartial admitting they BOTH lied. My point is they all lie.

Answer 1

I'm not saying lying is okay-but there are degrees, as far as I'm concerned. For instance, if a rancher in Montana lied to the woman at the local bar or his friends and said he had 500 head of cattle, that's not great but is an exaggeration. And the people hearing the lie probably know it's not the truth-but don't really care. But if a rancher lied when he was selling the ranch-and said the 500 head(when there was only 300) went with the ranch-that would be a serious lie. I don't believe Clinton's lie was nearly as serious.

Oliver North-during the hearings, North admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged among other things.

He defended his illegal actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as freedom fighters, and said that he viewed the Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea"
North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions).

He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

According to the National Security Archive, in an August 23, 1986 email to John Poindexter, Oliver North described a meeting with a representative of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega: "You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship", North writes before explaining Noriega's proposal. If U.S. officials can "help clean up his image" and lift the ban on arms sales to the Panamanian Defense Force, Noriega will "'take care of' the Sandinista leadership for us."

General Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno (born February 11, 1938) is a Panamanian general, the de facto military leader of Panama from 1983 to 1989. Contrary to the claims offered by several sources, Noriega was never President of Panama. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama.

I know this is long but a good example of yet another instance where the US puts a bad guy in power and then takes him out later....a little like Saddam. History has some lessons for us if we would heed them...

North tells Poindexter that Noriega can assist with sabotage against the Sandinistas, and suggests paying Noriega a million dollars cash; from "Project Democracy" funds raised from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran – for the Panamanian leader's help in destroying Nicaraguan economic installations .

Answer 2

that they had ought to educate the signature is genuine and not in any respect basically stamped, that's really uncomplicated that if that were the problem that they had understand it with information from now, it is against the law to deceive congress. Now, if the Republicans have not carried out so at the same time as its really uncomplicated, then you could anticipate both you're literally not getting the total tale, or that they understand better and are basically throwing out accusations and are hoping that it's going to stick at the same time as the fact isn't what they favor. That Clinton might want to be secure with information from the Republican homestead is ridiculous, you're being fed a line of bull, and they understand it. Its time the right woke as a lot because the way they are shamelessly manipulated.

Answer 3

Lying is lying period. They are both equally guilty. However, I should point out that I don't remember Clinton lying to Congress. He lied under oath in Grand Jury testimony related to the Paula Jones sexual harassment allegations. I also do not remember Oliver North lying to Congress, but rather just not answering many questions asked. Who can forget the famous comment he made about his memory being shredded.

Amusing how so many people cannot just state the truth. Look at how many attempted of defenses of Clinton there are here. Just shows yet again that many people only believe in selective accountibility, not equal justice for all.

Middleclassandnotquiet: Your rancher comparison is wholly inadequate unless the racher took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. Mr. Clinton did this and then committed a criminal act. It is a credibility issue and there are no degrees to it. Again, the fact that so many are unwilling to recognize this simple fact and represent it properly is just disturbing. No one is asking you to say that Clinton was a bad president, just merely acknowledge the fact that he committed a criminal offense and stop trying to defend him for it. Democrats are great at attacking the Republicans for every perceived slight, but just will not acknowledge criminality or unethical conduct on their own side. By doing this they call their own credibilty into question.

Answer 4

Two people? That's a serious understatement. Presidents alone, several have lied under oath. Currently, Nixon is the only one to run like a scolded dog under the pressure of actual impeachment. As for the two, They're equally guilty, depending on what they were charged with.

Answer 5

If only two people have ever lied under oath to Congress, Americans must be the most truthful people ever to have lived upon this earth

Answer 6

Actually, Clinton lied under oath in a court of law, and was found guilty and censured by congress. (He also was disbarred by the BAR assn.)

North was never proven to have lied (whether he did or not he was never found guilty of anything even remotely close to perjury)

It has nothing to do with what party they were in, it is about what could be proven vs. conjecture.



Satan: Clinton lied about sex which is completely relevant in a Sexual Harrassment case. Moreso he had the option not to testify and would have still won his case, but he chose to lie under oath instead. The case should have never been allowed to proceed while he was in office but once it was allowed it was Clinton's choice to lie.

Answer 7

Technically, Clinton lied about his personal life, which the public and his peer really had no right to explore. He also said: "I don't recall" several thousand times, which is fairly unbelievable, but not necessarily lying.

Oliver North lied about Military Actions, the Iran Contra Affair, and military spending and utilization.

I think they should both rot in jail...cuz I hate all politicians.

Answer 8

Are you kidding!! North should have been fried or he should have told us who put him up to the scam. What still peeves me is North standing there in his Marine Corps uniform and lying thru his teeth. IMOP he disrespected the honor of the Corps yet the neo-cons still hold him up to be a hero!! Go figure!!!

Answer 9

No, Clinton lied about something in a civil case that had nothing to do with the case he was testifying in.

Answer 10

one was about a personal issue,the lie was more about ethics. the other lied about subverting our countrys laws and lied to protect a president that couldn't recall anything.

edit. what was norths punishment?