Then why do you get so kirked out when we talk about him?Kerad said:
ROFLMAO - a must read!
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Skink...
...how about we just let you have all the perjury and suborning of perjury and obstruction of justice and all the rest of that, OK? A man that juvenile running the country clearly doesn't even remotely bother you, so, fine. There is no point in trying to get you to see the broader implications.
I presume you are a lawyer, and as such, you are trained to do just what you are doing; separating the actions of a client, in this case BC, in one area from his actions in another as though it is completely out of the question that if he does A to this person that he'd do A to another person.
So, how about we move on to, oh, Billy Dale for starters? Do you think the President was right to turn the IRS loose on him in order to get his friends the travel office business? Do you think he told us the truth about that incident?
We'll get on to Lippo, the umpteen terror attacks against us, Loral, Whitewater and the McDougals and all other fun stuff later. Best to go one at a time, keep 'em seperate, huh?
When we're done with all this, you'll agree, as I'm sure you are intelligent enough to already know, that a persons character has a way of shining through in all areas of their life, personal and professional.
Also;
The reason you are puzzled is because you don't seem to be following my posts. I LOVE Bill Clinton. He IS a great story. I'm sure if I met him I'd think he was a great guy to have a beer with. As I wrote before, his 8 year frat party brought us, the nation, a GOP majority in the House after 40 some years, a GOP majority in the Senate, a two term cowboy GOP'er for President and, so far, two seemingly excellent Supreme Court judges. That's no small potatoes.
He is a fascinating character because he's done so much FOR the nation in inviting the Democratic party to minority status and it, they, en mass, went for it. I can quote the late, great, Michael Kelly or any number of true Democrats who lament what happened to the moral high ground of the Democrat party under his tutelage. But, I know you've read it all before.
We could not have done it without him or, frankly, the people who went along with the whole gag. He used his amazing charm and power to communicate and get what he wanted. Most people still don't get it. Or refuse to and fall back on the good old sex thing as the great ill.
It's amazing to think what good he could have accomplished if he'd had the focus or discipline to persue a few things. He is the greatest pure politician of the second half of the last century.
...how about we just let you have all the perjury and suborning of perjury and obstruction of justice and all the rest of that, OK? A man that juvenile running the country clearly doesn't even remotely bother you, so, fine. There is no point in trying to get you to see the broader implications.
I presume you are a lawyer, and as such, you are trained to do just what you are doing; separating the actions of a client, in this case BC, in one area from his actions in another as though it is completely out of the question that if he does A to this person that he'd do A to another person.
So, how about we move on to, oh, Billy Dale for starters? Do you think the President was right to turn the IRS loose on him in order to get his friends the travel office business? Do you think he told us the truth about that incident?
We'll get on to Lippo, the umpteen terror attacks against us, Loral, Whitewater and the McDougals and all other fun stuff later. Best to go one at a time, keep 'em seperate, huh?
When we're done with all this, you'll agree, as I'm sure you are intelligent enough to already know, that a persons character has a way of shining through in all areas of their life, personal and professional.
Also;
The reason you are puzzled is because you don't seem to be following my posts. I LOVE Bill Clinton. He IS a great story. I'm sure if I met him I'd think he was a great guy to have a beer with. As I wrote before, his 8 year frat party brought us, the nation, a GOP majority in the House after 40 some years, a GOP majority in the Senate, a two term cowboy GOP'er for President and, so far, two seemingly excellent Supreme Court judges. That's no small potatoes.
He is a fascinating character because he's done so much FOR the nation in inviting the Democratic party to minority status and it, they, en mass, went for it. I can quote the late, great, Michael Kelly or any number of true Democrats who lament what happened to the moral high ground of the Democrat party under his tutelage. But, I know you've read it all before.
We could not have done it without him or, frankly, the people who went along with the whole gag. He used his amazing charm and power to communicate and get what he wanted. Most people still don't get it. Or refuse to and fall back on the good old sex thing as the great ill.
It's amazing to think what good he could have accomplished if he'd had the focus or discipline to persue a few things. He is the greatest pure politician of the second half of the last century.
We get kirked out about the falsehoods and stupidity, not Bush himself. I've busted on him any number of times, as have other conservatives on here.camily said:
ROFLMAO - a must read! 03-25-2006 12:46 AM The Lawyer is right. You are wrong. Clinton was never convicted of anything. your personal beliefs do not change that fact.
Check the judge’s order, the citation is Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 12 Apr 1999) and this isn’t my personal belief but what actually took place.
Check the judge’s order, the citation is Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 12 Apr 1999) and this isn’t my personal belief but what actually took place.
I know you don't think they're going to read that. Why let facts get in the way of beliefs?Ken King said:
I would hope that they would read it, but I guess doing so might tarnish the shinning image they hold for Slick Willy, so you are probably right.vraiblonde said:I know you don't think they're going to read that. Why let facts get in the way of beliefs?
SkinkTyree
Member
Ken King said:
That's not actually the case.
Judge Wright's opinion only reads Clinton could be sanctioned for civil contempt. Sanctioning a party for civil contempt is not akin to any criminal proceeding. And to be convicted of a criminal act, one must first be involved in a criminal proceeding by being charged via a grand jury indictment or when applicable a prosecuting attorney's "information", i.e. a formal charging document. Neither of those instances occurred in this matter. In fact, the opinion clearly points this fact out when it states:
"n electing to proceed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), the Court also avoids any constitutional issues that might arise from addressing the matter in a criminal context. As noted in Section II of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Supreme Court essentially resolved the question of whether a President can be cited for civil contempt by holding, in a civil proceeding, that the Constitution does not place the President's unofficial conduct beyond judicial scrutiny." Jones, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1134.
A court can impose punishment without it being considered a criminal matter. One of the best examples of this are--believe it or not--traffic tickets. Your average traffic ticket is not considered part of your criminal record (which is good news for all of you who's worst instance of legal malfesance is going 65 in a 55 mph zone). However, a court can still order fines for traffic violations. Likewise, a court can order sanctions for not properly acting in the interests of full disclosure during the discovery process.
Furthermore, the finding of civil contempt and taxing of attorney's costs on President Clinton for his failure to disclose truthfully issues regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky have no bearing on whether he committed the act of perjury or not.
Judge Wright merely reprimanded President Clinton because he failed to truthfully answer questions related to his relationship with Lewinsky during both deposition questioning and interrogatories (written questions) posed to him. That is something we already know. On the other hand, whether or not the Lewinsky affair was relevant or not to the substance of the underlying allegations was not ultimately determined in this opinion, nor was it the purpose of imposing sanctions to determine the relevency of such.
Clinton's lies all occurred within the discovery process. The discovery process is simply the fact finding period in the lawsuit process in which all evidence, however remotely related to the ultimate issues, are gathered up for scrutiny by the parties. Information which is irrelevant, hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible at trial can be requested during the discovery process; discovery merely lays everything and anything out on the table so the parties can determine what can and cannot be used for their case. Had Jones v. Clinton ever gone to an actual trial, it's quite possible any jury hypothetically seated would never have heard any testimony or mention of the Lewinsky affair because of its likely irrelevance to the issue at hand, that being whether Bill Clinton ever made inappropriate and non-consensual advances and propositions to Paula Jones. And without that information ever being at trial, there would be no grounds for perjury. Of course the matter never went to trial so that question is ultimately moot.
The court only sanctioned Clinton for not truthfully disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky during the discovery process. It never adjudicated him guilty for perjury, nor was Clinton ever adjudicated guilty for any criminal act. The only time he was charged with perjury was during the impeachment process (a non-criminal proceeding), and he was acquited on all charges. So there simply was no conviction.
Last edited:
SkinkTyree
Member
Larry Gude said:
I know you like to bring up Whitewater and Travelgate and Troopergate and whatever else was raised against President Clinton during his term in office. The problem again being, just as it was with the Monica affair, there was never any finding of wrong doing against him. For most of these leveled claims, there were explicit statements by investigating persons stating as such. And while you might say the mere accusations of wrongdoing on multiple issues speak for themselves, the underlying and well co-ordinated involvement of Richard Mellon Scaife, the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator behind basically each and every one of those seemingly independent allegations raises significant doubt as to their validity. (For an informative read, try either "The Hunting of the President" or "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock, a former member of the Arkansas Project.)
As for your attributing of what you believe to be a fortunate current political situation, I think you are giving too much credit to our 42nd President. At least in terms of the presidency, much of the credit for the first term of our current president can be given to a highly contested and disputed election (in which President Bush failed to gain the popular vote) ultimately determined by the Supreme Court. And the second term can be accredited to a manipulation of a terrorist attack to create a heightened atmosphere of fear for this country's security as well as a pre-emptive war of choice which helped towards an ultimately successful whole "don't change horses in midstream" argument to the American people.
Skink, you sound like Alan Dershowitz explaining how OJ can slaughter two people and still be found "not guilty".
You're not an eco-terrorist are you?SkinkTyree said:
SkinkTyree
Member
vraiblonde said:You're not an eco-terrorist are you?
Nah....just a former governor run out of office by The Man living in the Florida Everglades who pops his head up every so often to right the wrongs of the state.
Pretty much everything by Hiaasen is a lot of fun to read, especially if you love (or love to hate) everything about the State of Florida. (And yes, "Striptease" is a much better book than the Demi Moore movie adaptation). My favorite's gotta be "Sick Puppy" though.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well!
Why didn't you say so in the first place!
Clinton was not convicted of anything, therefore, none of it EVER happened!
So, let's quit wasting time with the ever so innocent William J and move your standard of proof onto the current occupant, shall we?
I'll just stand by while you defend W, by your standards, against all the nefarious allegations (unproven, mind you!) against him. Go ahead. AWOL. Cocaine. WMD. Weather machines. Tsunamis, hurricanes. Hating black people. Breaking the law as regards the Patriot act, wiretaps, knowing about 9/11 before hand. Making 9/11 happen. Go'head.
While you're at it, maybe you could explain, being a big law and order, rules kinda guy, why would you even mention the popular vote? By your mindset, that doesn't even exist, just like all the baseless allegations against BC and Co; it's not the rules or the law. So, why?
As far as not giving Clinton credit, based on your arguments so far, I am certainly not looking for any kind of consistency from you, so, whatever you say, your honor.
Of course, your defense of our current President could change that opinion...
I'll wait...
SkinkTyree said:
Why didn't you say so in the first place!
Clinton was not convicted of anything, therefore, none of it EVER happened!
So, let's quit wasting time with the ever so innocent William J and move your standard of proof onto the current occupant, shall we?
I'll just stand by while you defend W, by your standards, against all the nefarious allegations (unproven, mind you!) against him. Go ahead. AWOL. Cocaine. WMD. Weather machines. Tsunamis, hurricanes. Hating black people. Breaking the law as regards the Patriot act, wiretaps, knowing about 9/11 before hand. Making 9/11 happen. Go'head.
While you're at it, maybe you could explain, being a big law and order, rules kinda guy, why would you even mention the popular vote? By your mindset, that doesn't even exist, just like all the baseless allegations against BC and Co; it's not the rules or the law. So, why?
As far as not giving Clinton credit, based on your arguments so far, I am certainly not looking for any kind of consistency from you, so, whatever you say, your honor.
Of course, your defense of our current President could change that opinion...
I'll wait...
SkinkTyree
Member
Larry Gude said:
Easy there, fella. Your boy G. Dub's still has two and a half years until he's scot free. A thing like warrantless wiretapping, quite clearly against the law, might change things. That or some possible personal connection in the still-ongoing Plame investigation.
AWOL and cocaine are long past history. Don't care about that. Plus the statute of limitations have long run on those things regardless.
Weather machines???
His actions (or lack thereof) relating to Katrina can best be described as gross negligence, but I wouldn't catagorize it as criminal...at least not yet. Same goes for his strange non-reaction on the morning of September 11th, and the fact he now has said he doesn't spend much time on Osama Bin Laden.
Iraq and WMD is a wild card. If there can be a smoking gun produced, it would cause major problems. So far things like the Downing Street Memo have hinted at things, but it remains to be seen if there is going to be more down the road.
You also have to keep in mind President Bush has had the luxury of a friendly congress for essentially his entire term, something President Clinton did not have for most of his.