ROFLMAO - a must read!

[2ndAmendment]

...to be honestly making an argument based on the law. People throughout history have stood on the very same ground that you are;

It's the law.

My argument is; Does that make it right, in your opinion?

My take is that it, to you, does. Care to refute that?

QUOTE]

Having a consensual affair with someone other than your own spouse is not right, in my opinion, to one's spouse. But it's not something that's an affront to humanity like slavery or deprivation of civil rights are. As such it's not something that should codied in law against.

If you want to make a legal argument, you'd best keep the law in mind, not what you personally think is right or wrong.

Last time I checked, a consensual affair with someone other than your own spouse is adultery and is against the law.

 

[SkinkTyree]

Yep. This had happened years ago and she had no desire to put herself in either the media spotlight or Carville's line of fire. She saw what happened to Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning and others who came forward, how the Leftwing media ripped them to shreds and said all those ugly things about them.

The affidavit was executed before Tripp and Lewinsky were household names. It was signed on January 2, 1998. No one outside of Ken Starr's office knew who Tripp or Lewinsky were until January 26, 1998 when the allegations of the affair became public.

But I guess the "blame the left wing media" thing works well.

 

[vraiblonde]

If you want to make a legal argument, you'd best keep the law in mind, not what you personally think is right or wrong.

Lying in a deposition is against the law.

Asking others to lie in court testimony is against the law.

I hope like hell that 2A is wrong and you are not a lawyer or law student. But if you are, then you know full well that someone can be guilty as sin of a crime - going so far as to publicly admit that guilt - and a jury will decide to vote "not guilty". They get plea bargains. They get placed on the stet docket. Any number of things happen to prevent criminal actions from being prosecuted and punished.

 

[Kerad]

But I guess the "blame the left wing media" thing works well.

It's one of their favorite plays...no doubt.

 

[vraiblonde]

But I guess the "blame the left wing media" thing works well.

Do you deny that these women were disparaged in the media? Because I'll find you some links, if you like.

 

[SkinkTyree]

...you must sleep good.

Would you mind helping me with some info on Brodderick giving sworn testimony that no such assault ever happened?

Could you also describe how some people swearing something under oath is a fact and matters and how other people swearing something under oath is trivial? How do you pick and choose?

I would think the important thing would be to keep in mind that there was nothing to support the allegations against Bush 41 (not sure about RR) and there is all manner of things to support allegations against Clinton.

The purpose of giving sworn testimony is not to trap a person in each and every word that they state in the hopes that one can prosecute for perjury. The purpose of giving sworn testimony is to determine the truth of the matter at hand.

With Brodderick, the matter at hand was whether Bill Clinton had sexual assaulted her. Under oath, she said no.

With Clinton, the matter at hand was whether Bill Clinton made inappropriate advances towards Paula Jones. He said no. The allegations about Jones were never proven to be true in a matter of law. Therefore, you cannot legally say he was lying. Now along the way, he denied having a consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky which was in fact not the case, but that doesn't matter because it did not affect the matter at hand.

Oaths are to be taken very seriously but you have to understand the purpose of them before you can argue they've been broken.

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, Skink, I'll get back with you at a later date - work beckons.

This has been interesting and I like your screen name. Welcome to the forums.

 

[SkinkTyree]

Actually, most states have a time period where you can file for reinstatement. Disbarment is not indefinite, nor is it forever.


It doesn't matter. He admitted he lied on national television. Or are you saying he was lying when he said he lied?

1. Again, splitting hairs but once a suspension ends, you are automatically reinstated. You can petition to be reinstated after being disbarred, but it is neither automatic nor is it guaranteed. They're still two different things.

2. While perjury might be lying, lying is not perjury. I think that's been established. And only perjury is a crime.

 

[SkinkTyree]

Last time I checked, a consensual affair with someone other than your own spouse is adultery and is against the law.

Very few--if any--states still have adultery laws on the books. And I don't think there's been a prosecution for adultery in decades.

The overwhelming legal trend is that adultery, while still frowned upon, is not a criminal offense.

 

[2ndAmendment]

1. Again, splitting hairs but once a suspension ends, you are automatically reinstated. You can petition to be reinstated after being disbarred, but it is neither automatic nor is it guaranteed. They're still two different things.

2. While perjury might be lying, lying is not perjury. I think that's been established. And only perjury is a crime.

And that is a perfect example of why I do not like lawyers.

 

[SkinkTyree]

Anyway, Skink, I'll get back with you at a later date - work beckons.

This has been interesting and I like your screen name. Welcome to the forums.

Likewise Vrai.

Check out any Carl Hiaasen book to get some additional insight on my name.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Very few--if any--states still have adultery laws on the books. And I don't think there's been a prosecution for adultery in decades.

The overwhelming legal trend is that adultery, while still frowned upon, is not a criminal offense.

Last time I knew anything about it, adultery is still on the books in Maryland. It is a misdemeanor, but still a crime.

 

[SkinkTyree]

And that is a perfect example of why I do not like lawyers.

Most lawyers don't like lawyers, either. Trust me.

But get yourself involved in a legal situation and try to do without. Damn near impossible.

 

[Larry Gude]

Now that...

Dems isn't really stupid. She just plays that part on the forums.

..wasn't very nice.

Dems, you gonna take that?

Git 'im!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Most lawyers don't like lawyers, either. Trust me.

But get yourself involved in a legal situation and try to do without. Damn near impossible.

Did well acting in my on behalf several times. Of course it was only traffic offenses. I was not convicted in any of the three times.

 

[2ndAmendment]

..wasn't very nice.

Dems, you gonna take that?
Git 'im!

Dems and I are friendly. She has been at our place a couple o times. We a pals in fireworks.

We are enemies in politics. But, she is more conservative than she will admit to even herself.

 

[Larry Gude]

I take your position...

The purpose of giving sworn testimony is not to trap a person in each and every word that they state in the hopes that one can prosecute for perjury. The purpose of giving sworn testimony is to determine the truth of the matter at hand.

With Brodderick, the matter at hand was whether Bill Clinton had sexual assaulted her. Under oath, she said no.

With Clinton, the matter at hand was whether Bill Clinton made inappropriate advances towards Paula Jones. He said no. The allegations about Jones were never proven to be true in a matter of law. Therefore, you cannot legally say he was lying. Now along the way, he denied having a consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky which was in fact not the case, but that doesn't matter because it did not affect the matter at hand.

Oaths are to be taken very seriously but you have to understand the purpose of them before you can argue they've been broken.

...to be you see that Clinton, not his victims, not his office, not his wife, friends and administration, or the nation for that matter, was wronged and, if so, then it's clear why only thing we're talking about is Bill Clinton and his perception of what a person should do with their limited time as the President of the United States.

And not talking about Bill Dale, Lippo, Chung and Trie and Loral and Livingston and the terror attacks and fundraising and...

...and how young, winey, insecure kids become GOP'ers and confident, strong kids go on to be the great leaders of the free world...and the Democratic Party.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not sure who ruins the fun more...

Dems and I are friendly. She has been at our place a couple o times. We a pals in fireworks.

We are enemies in politics. But, she is more conservative than she will admit to even herself.

...you or her. I already KNOW that which is why I am trying to stir up trouble, damn it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...you or her. I already KNOW that which is why I am trying to stir up trouble, damn it.

You know I have no sense of humor. Just ask Sharon or catt.

 

[dems4me]

...you or her. I already KNOW that which is why I am trying to stir up trouble, damn it.

sorry, I've been busy with work