ROFLMAO - a must read!

[vraiblonde]

The relevance of this to the allegations made by Jones escapes me.

Well let me tell you, then:

The prosecutors were trying to show that Clinton has a history of propositioning his female subordinates, lending some credibility to Jones' accusation that Clinton propositioned her.

It's that simple.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's fascinating...

From a legal perspective, allow me to interject.

Black's Law Dictionary (which is the premier authority of the definition of law terms in the legal circle, defines "perjury" as the following:

"the willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, either upon oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or otherwise, such assertion being material to the issue or point of inquiry and known to such witness to be false."

Given that definition, it's quite doubtful Clinton committed perjury, and as such that is likely why he was neither charged with perjury in any criminal proceedings, nor was he convicted of the perjury charge in the impeachment proceedings.

To wit:

Clinton's denial of the Lewinsky affair did occur under oath; however, it occurred during a civil proceeding, namely the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. There was no "crime" as this was not a criminal indictment. Now, I don't know if you are aware, but it is possible for perjury to still be committed in civil proceedings, but this instance did not stand legal mustand.

Now putting aside the merits of the Jones suit (which was in fact later dismissed for failure to state a cause of action) or the questionable funding sources utilized for the prosecution of the suit, you still have to look at things objectively.

Clinton lied about what was a consentual affair with an adult who was not Paula Jones. The relevance of this to the allegations made by Jones escapes me. This was a highly irrelevant line of questioning with no bearing on the issue of the suit, which was whether then Gov. Clinton made inappropriate advances towards Ms. Jones without her consent. What President Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky, and the fact that he denied it even though it was in the end true, was not--to quote Black's--"material to the issue or point of inquiry" of the underlying lawsuit. As such, no perjury.

Let me provide you with a real world example. Say you are being sued for causing an accident which injured the plaintiff. Let's say they say you ran a stop sign. You're deposed or called to the stand to testify. You are put under oath. The attorney asks for your full name. Say your middle name is Gaylord, but for obvious reasons you don't want to disclose that fact. So you lie and give another name instead. So you've techincally lied while you are under oath. But it's ridiculous to think any prosecutor is going to bust you for perjury for lying about something that was not in any ways relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether you ran a stop sign which caused the accident. That would be a tremendous waste of time, money and the court's resources to do so. Therefore, that is why perjury only pertains to issues relevant to the case at hand.

And finally, while you may believe the Jones suit dealt with a crime, the fact is it was not a criminal proceeding. It was a civil matter. So that too is in error.

...where were you when laws were being passed, both civil and military, to protect women from having to have 'consensual' sex with their superiors?

When Bill Clinton took the oath of office was that as optional as his vows to his wife, his commitment to his administration and his word, under oath, in persuing sex through power?

I'm wondering if this same mindset applies to the Billy Dale case, the Lippo group, Web Hubbel, Charlie Trie, Johhny Chang, 70 some odd foriegn nationals taking the 5th and skipping the country, Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, the McDougals, Lorals missile guidance technology export being moved from Dept. Defense to Commerce or, well, all the rest of the goodies?

Just curious.

 

[Larry Gude]

As we've been told...

..there was no merit on the Jones lawsuit, can anyone tell me why St. Clinton was disbarred?

Is that in Blacks as well?

 

[SkinkTyree]

Well let me tell you, then:

The prosecutors were trying to show that Clinton has a history of propositioning his female subordinates, lending some credibility to Jones' accusation that Clinton propositioned her.

It's that simple.

I do believe it was Monica who made the first move (i.e. the flashing of the thong), and from that point on it was history. I've also read numerous books on Clinton, objectively written, who say it was not Bill's M.O. to foist himself upon the ladies like that. Not saying he didn't like the ladies--Bill loovved the ladies--but he generally brought them in with his charm and let them make the first overt move. He wasn't a pre-emptive strike kind of guy in that regards, if you know what I mean.

But the merits--or lack thereof--of Jones' allegation are irrelevant to the question of perjury, because in the end the lie at issue was irrelevant to the merits of the allegation. And that's why Clinton was never convicted of perjury, either in the impeachment proceedings or in any court of law.

Clinton's lie was not anything relating to the propositioning of Monica Lewinsky. His lie was that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. So no matter what way you spin it, it's still irrelevant. The substance of the lie was a consensual affair. It wasn't anything about either propositioning anyone or making inappropriate advances towards anyone.

Now that's simple.

I'm just amazed people are still obsessed over this, eight years removed from when it happened. I wish things were that good in this country that all we had to talk about was presidential BJs.

 

[vraiblonde]

From a legal perspective, allow me to interject.

From a "legal perspective", you don't know what you're talking about.

Clinton lied in his deposition, which is against the law.

He asked others to lie as well, which is against the law.

I've said many times that I couldn't care less if Clinton's getting some on the side. That was and is completely immaterial. But he lied and got others to lie in order to prevent a citizen from getting their day in court, which is supposed to be guaranteed under the Constitution.

This makes him an evil person.

 

[Kerad]

You know how behind every rock and tree you see a Republican conspiracy/lie/mistake/stupidity/nefarious plot?

I know you do because it is the essence of your drive bys.

So, we've established that you are capable of at least being suspicious of malignant intent, yes? Never mind the details like GOP=Bad, Libs=Good or any of those obvious metaphysical certainties, just work with me that suspicion is nothing foreign to you.

Good?

OK. You see, some people might, and I do say might, look at something like an order to use military force in the middle of an uncomfortable situation as an attempt at distracting attention from said discomfort. Add in that the use of force in question could have held the same water, the same reasoning, a month before or six months before and several years before because all of the specified conditions had not changed one wit.

It's kinda like a pot head with an ash tray full of roaches, right? Well, they've been sitting their for a long time, merely accumulating. Just never, for whatever reason, got around to cleaning them out even though it was fairly obvious if anyone ever came along, they'd see them and there might be trouble.

So, all of a sudden, there he is; officer friendly and his flashing lights.

'Hey now! I think RIGHT now would be a GREAT time to clean that there ash tray out!' says Freddy the Roach.

So, there goes Freddy, frantically dumping his ash tray out the window as he is pulling to a stop, right? Blowing in his face, burning embers from the most recent one setting the grass on fire and all the while Freddy has on his 'nothing to see here' face. 'Just doing a little light cleaning' and who could possibly think that odd?

Besides officer Friendly and his sex squad Puritans of course.

So, when you read 'Clinton doing the right thing' just pause and think 'Freddy and his ash tray.'

And the moral of the story is...if you do dumb things all the time, sooner or later, your dumb ash is gonna get you in trouble.

Ummmm....okay. Sure.

Anyways...what is your stand here? Are YOU saying that Clinton was taking action to distract from the scandal? If it was hidden in the middle of that story somewhere, I apologize. Of course I know that people can spin it how they want. It's just a bit odd that certain righties get all fired up and claim Clinton didn't do enough, militarily. But when he did use force...the righties were crying that he was only doing it to distract.

The spin game works both ways, for both sides.

 

[Larry Gude]

Does the name...

I do believe it was Monica who made the first move (i.e. the flashing of the thong), and from that point on it was history. I've also read numerous books on Clinton, objectively written, who say it was not Bill's M.O. to foist himself upon the ladies like that. Not saying he didn't like the ladies--Bill loovved the ladies--but he generally brought them in with his charm and let them make the first overt move. He wasn't a pre-emptive strike kind of guy in that regards, if you know what I mean.

But the merits--or lack thereof--of Jones' allegation are irrelevant to the question of perjury, because in the end the lie at issue was irrelevant to the merits of the allegation. And that's why Clinton was never convicted of perjury, either in the impeachment proceedings or in any court of law.

Clinton's lie was not anything relating to the propositioning of Monica Lewinsky. His lie was that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. So no matter what way you spin it, it's still irrelevant. The substance of the lie was a consensual affair. It wasn't anything about either propositioning anyone or making inappropriate advances towards anyone.

Now that's simple.

I'm just amazed people are still obsessed over this, eight years removed from when it happened. I wish things were that good in this country that all we had to talk about was presidential BJs.

...Jaunita Broderick ring any bells?

And would you please let NOW know that using ones position of power to get laid is OK becasue Bill Clinton did it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh my God!

Ummmm....okay. Sure.

Anyways...what is your stand here? Are YOU saying that Clinton was taking action to distract from the scandal? If it was hidden in the middle of that story somewhere, I apologize. Of course I know that people can spin it how they want. It's just a bit odd that certain righties get all fired up and claim Clinton didn't do enough, militarily. But when he did use force...the righties were crying that he was only doing it to distract.

The spin game works both ways, for both sides.

what is your stand here? Are YOU saying that Clinton was taking action to distract from the scandal?

No effing way!

 

[vraiblonde]

I do believe it was Monica who made the first move

Then Clinton should have simply said so, rather than lying and pressuring others to lie.

I've also read numerous books on Clinton, objectively written, who say it was not Bill's M.O. to foist himself upon the ladies like that.

I think Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broadderick and a host of others would disagree with you.

 

[SkinkTyree]

...where were you when laws were being passed, both civil and military, to protect women from having to have 'consensual' sex with their superiors?

When Bill Clinton took the oath of office was that as optional as his vows to his wife, his commitment to his administration and his word, under oath, in persuing sex through power?

I'm wondering if this same mindset applies to the Billy Dale case, the Lippo group, Web Hubbel, Charlie Trie, Johhny Chang, 70 some odd foriegn nationals taking the 5th and skipping the country, Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, the McDougals, Lorals missile guidance technology export being moved from Dept. Defense to Commerce or, well, all the rest of the goodies?

Just curious.

There's no law against a President having a consensual relationship with a staff member. I hate to break it to you, but that's just how it is. And if it were a crime, half of the Presidents we've ever had would probably have done time. But this ain't the military code of justice we're talking about here.

And to answer your question, Clinton was never disbarred. His Arkansas bar license was temporarily suspended. And that's not the same as being convicted of perjury, or even anything dealing with the underlying allegations of committing the crime of perjury.

 

[Larry Gude]

No, no, no...

The spin game works both ways, for both sides.

When you fail to do your job, to provide for the common defense, sex gets brought up to distract from the facts.

Bill Clintons failure as CIC lead directly to 9/11 and all you have to do is take the man who did the work, OBL, at his word.

W, on the other hand, is taking the responsibility a bit more seriously and even managing to not act like a frat boy in the process.

The 'spin' is there so you can just whirl things around and not have to face it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Are YOU saying that Clinton was taking action to distract from the scandal?

He probably did, but I don't care about that. My beef is that he didn't follow through - merely made this "show of force" so he could look big and bad right before he dropped the whole matter and made it Bush's future problem.

 

[Larry Gude]

All I am asking for...

There's no law against a President having a consensual relationship with a staff member. I hate to break it to you, but that's just how it is. And if it were a crime, half of the Presidents we've ever had would probably have done time. But this ain't the military code of justice we're talking about here.

And to answer your question, Clinton was never disbarred. His Arkansas bar license was temporarily suspended. And that's not the same as being convicted of perjury, or even anything dealing with the underlying allegations of committing the crime of perjury.

...is for you to say it's A-OK with you.

Slavery used to be legal. Women used to not be allowed to vote. And, let's be honest, you don't hate to break it to me. You enjoy defending Clinton.

 

[vraiblonde]

There's no law against a President having a consensual relationship with a staff member.

No, but there IS a law against lying in a court deposition and pressuring others to lie.

Really. Look it up.

And the fact is that Clinton WAS impeached, therefore we WAS convicted of a crime. The Senate said "no punishment" so that's what he got.

 

[Larry Gude]

And this might do...

There's no law against a President having a consensual relationship with a staff member. I hate to break it to you, but that's just how it is. And if it were a crime, half of the Presidents we've ever had would probably have done time. But this ain't the military code of justice we're talking about here.

And to answer your question, Clinton was never disbarred. His Arkansas bar license was temporarily suspended. And that's not the same as being convicted of perjury, or even anything dealing with the underlying allegations of committing the crime of perjury.

...some good to shed light on your attitude towards women:

http://reason.com/9808/fe.young.shtml

 

[vraiblonde]

And to answer your question, Clinton was never disbarred.

Wrong again. What do you think "disbarred" means? It means that your license to practice law has been suspended.

Clinton was disbarred (by the friggin' Supreme Court, no less) in October 2001.

 

[Larry Gude]

Of course we have to...

...go some to even consider this all about sex. The President didn't think so.

In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations.

It is the 'is' thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Some help here...

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm

Does anyone know what this means?

WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

...I'm thinking it means...disbarred, but, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Kerad]

When you fail to do your job, to provide for the common defense, sex gets brought up to distract from the facts.

Bill Clintons failure as CIC lead directly to 9/11 and all you have to do is take the man who did the work, OBL, at his word.

W, on the other hand, is taking the responsibility a bit more seriously and even managing to not act like a frat boy in the process.

The 'spin' is there so you can just whirl things around and not have to face it.

THERE it is! I wondered how long until someone threw out the "9/11 was Clinton's fault" claim. I admit to being a little surprised it was you to do it first...but then again, maybe I shouldn't have been.

I've been chastised (correctly so) for not reading the linked references. Did you read the one I provided earlier?

 

[vraiblonde]

"Clinton was never convicted of a crime!"

"WTF do you think "impeachment" is???

"Clinton was never disbarred - he just had his license suspended."

"WTF do you think "disbarred" means???"

"It was just sex."

"No. The House doesn't impeach Presidents over sex. They do impeach them for perjury and suborning perjury, though."



This is why it's so hard to have a discussion with a Democrat. They have a weird revisionist history and a language all their own.