Bush's guy get sentenced to 18 months

[Amazon 7]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA... and the Ultra Right Wing Guys here constantly deride all that Conspiracy Theory stuff as wacked......



OH BOYS.... look..... here is another conspiracy theory for you to deride and belittle....

[juanesky 0]

Are you OK?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Would you agree that SEMANTICALLY..... he was NOT lying.

No, I would not. See, when he swears "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" I think that he's bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Clinton is a lawyer, right? Clinton had lawyers, right? We lawyers are trained to use semantics to add clarity to things. I will grant that there are words and phrases that cause different meanings for different people. It's why we lawyers object to questions on grounds like "vague," "ambiguous," "overly broad" or "lacking foundation." So when asked, "did you ever have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton, as a lawyer, should have said, "What do you mean by sexual relations?" That's how he and his lawyers keep him outta trouble. Let's say Ken Starr asked, "Did you share any intimate moments with Ms. Lewisnky?" Well, my goodness, that's vague and is objectionable. Let's say the first question asked was, "How was the rim job she gave you?" In that case, there was no foundation - that is, no question to establish that he'd ever received one in the first place.

The reason for these objections is to prevent admissions on something that the person being questioned is not admitting. The way it should work, that would have kept Clinton out of trouble is,
"Objection. Vague. What do you mean by 'sexual relations?'"
"Well, I'll go through a list and ask you, yes or no, whether you two engaged in that act. First, did you ever kiss Ms.Lewisnky anywhere?"
"No."
"Did Ms. Lewinsky ever kiss you anywhere. By 'kiss' I mean 'place her mouth upon any part of your person.'"

So, there is one thing that, as a lawyer, he should know. But my main problem is that Clinton had the opportunity to describe the conduct and did not. He had the opportunity to tell "the whole truth" about it, and swore to. He did not.

Why is such a thing an "obstuction of justice?" Because it obstructs a determination of fact and truth. If there was nothing wrong with getting a slurping, then why didn't he say, "Yeah. I got a blowjob from her, though I don't know if that's what you mean by 'sexual relations.'"

It may be a surprise to you, but it is just common courtesy to be forthright about things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[juanesky 0]

I think that is the most accurate description of what really matter in the Clinton case.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why is such a thing an "obstuction of justice?" Because it obstructs a determination of fact and truth. If there was nothing wrong with getting a slurping, then why didn't he say, "Yeah. I got a blowjob from her, though I don't know if that's what you mean by 'sexual relations.'"

I have always heard lawyers tell you to give just the ANSWER and not elaborate... I guess it depends on what side of the table you are on.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I think that is the most accurate description of what really matter in the Clinton case.

From the Ultra Right Wing perspective... perhaps...and from the Christian Coalition....perhaps..

BUT from those people who believe that a blow job is not having sexual relations... no....

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you think we should sue Clinton in civil court?

Guess what the Paula Jones case was about. Clinton, by the way, thought that an American President should not have to face a civil suit while in office because his job is too important to devote to defending himself. He lost that procedural effort.

Which just goes to further prove my point that upper echelon govt. officials don't think they should have to live the same way every other peasant does.

Quote

It's not my theory, it the Constitution. A sitting president is tried for a crime via impeachment.

I was proven wrong in my reading of the Constitution less than a week ago. Therefore, I present the challenge to you to prove it, and I will eat crow again. I say that the Constitution provides that impeachment is solely for the purpose of removing an official from office.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I was proven wrong in my reading of the Constitution less than a week ago. Therefore, I present the challenge to you to prove it, and I will eat crow again. I say that the Constitution provides that impeachment is solely for the purpose of removing an official from office.

And I'm proven wrong this time.

From the US Constitution, Article One, Section 3:

Quote

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The point is yours, Sir.


Nonetheless, if there was not enough evidence for a conviction during his impeachment, why would there be enough evidence for a conviction by a jury of twelve? That in itself would imply that our leaders are supposed to be held to a lower standard while in office.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I have always heard lawyers tell you to give just the ANSWER and not elaborate...

So, Jeanne, I want a "yes" or "no." No elaboration or explanation. Just answer my question, "yes" or "no."

If I asked you whether you are the REAL killer of Nicole Simpson, would your answer to that question be the same as your answer to this question?

It's a yes or no question. Answer it, and I'll have an admission from you that you killed Nicole.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that the deposing attorneys asked questions like that. Though it appears their questions were similarly sloppy. With Clinton's interest in misdirecting and hiding, he shot himself down.

---

Some attorneys play those games. I love and hate them because they usually get lazy about it until you get to an important part of the questioning. If they've let stuff go and then say, "yes or no" when the client starts going on, then I'll ask questions until I get the piece of information.

I only stop clients when they go on rambling about irrelevant stuff instead of answering the question.

Different strokes, different folks. Most of the better attorneys I know let everything out, the tactic of "give em everything." Put it all out in the open. I'd rather lose a case the right way than win a case the wrong way, and I don't accept clients who do not believe the same thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if there was not enough evidence for a conviction during his impeachment, why would there be enough evidence for a conviction by a jury of twelve?

Different things. Different standards. Different types of jurors. And none of them are impartial when it comes to impeachment.

By the way, gettign an indictment is so easy it's ridiculous.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If I asked you whether you are the REAL killer of Nicole Simpson, would your answer to that question be the same as your answer to this question?

It's a yes or no question. Answer it, and I'll have an admission from you that you killed Nicole.

OBJECTION! Paradox!

True or false:

This sentence is false.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Clinton is a lawyer, right? Clinton had lawyers, right? We lawyers are trained to use semantics to add clarity to things. I will grant that there are words and phrases that cause different meanings for different people. It's why we lawyers object to questions on grounds like "vague," "ambiguous," "overly broad" or "lacking foundation." So when asked, "did you ever have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton, as a lawyer, should have said, "What do you mean by sexual relations?"

My understanding is that he didn't have to ask, here is why:

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.

[kallend 2,184]

Paraphrasing rushmc:

When did this thread get hijacked to be about Clinton?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

People for years have been throwing out the "he lied" comments. I am just asking to see some proof of it. With all the accusations you would think proof would be abundent. Some one please show me a transcript or something concrete indicating he did and I will agree with the "Clinton lied and should have gone to jail" group.

[lawrocket 3]

Assuming that what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) the judge (the same one who dismissed the lawsuit) found that Clinton lied.

I must admit that yours is the post that is giving me the most thought about the topic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Paraphrasing rushmc:

When did this thread get hijacked to be about Clinton?

I hijacked it when I said that this guy is going to jail for doing exactly what Clinton did and got away with with a civil discovery sanction - perjuring and obstructing justice. I'll take the heat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I must admit that yours is the post that is giving me the most thought about the topic.

That very same point has been made several times already. I don't know who made it originally; it may have been skydekker.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Assuming that what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) the judge (the same one who dismissed the lawsuit) found that Clinton lied.

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Assuming that what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) the judge (the same one who dismissed the lawsuit) found that Clinton lied.

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here.

me neither.

IF 1) The Independent Counsel had determined that the phrase "sexual relations" specifically means intercourse.

AND IF 2) Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

THEN by the court's definition, he was telling the truth.

(unless he also fucked her.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

IF 1) The Independent Counsel had determined that the phrase "sexual relations" specifically means intercourse.

AND IF 2) Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

THEN by the court's definition, he was telling the truth.

Which is why I brought up that the court found that he lied and issued a sanction against him. (To explain the nature of the sanction - the court found that his lie led to the opposing counsel doing $90k of work, which they wouldn't have done had he told the truth. So, they made Clinton pay for the work the attorneys wouldn't have had to do had he told the truth.)

That's why I brought it up - if what Skyrad says is true, then why did the judge find that he lied? If the judge merely had a personal vendetta, why did she dismiss the case? If the judge's decision to fine Clinton was erroneous, why didn't Clinton appeal it? Why didn't Clinton fight the bar suspension and the expulsion from the SCOTUS Bar?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[juanesky 0]

<== waves hands .....I know, I know.

Because of semantics, or his mind was numb after a nukular BJ.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If the judge's decision to fine Clinton was erroneous, why didn't Clinton appeal it? Why didn't Clinton fight the bar suspension and the expulsion from the SCOTUS Bar?

In my opinion?

1. To let the issue die
2. the fines compared to his legal costs to fight it, plus the income from speaking arrangements and books wasn't worth it.
3. His expulsion from the bar didn't matter, he would never act as a lawyer again anyways.
4. In the end, it was just in HIS best interest.

(And to be fair the sequence I quoted was from the Paula Jones deposition, which was initially included in the impeachment process, but didn't make it through. Out of for 4 articles, 2 were dismissed, this was one of them. Below I will quote how supposedly it happened. There is some abiguity in the whole thing. I still think under those circumstances, a case of perjury would have been very hard to prove)

Quote

During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones’ lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.

The Jones’ lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.

Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

Some have argued that Clinton’s interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones’ lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything – indeed, they were invited to by Clinton’s lawyers – but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence.

Others have charged that Clinton lied because there was another form of sexual activity – namely, the infamous "Cigar incident." This was when Clinton allegedly inserted a cigar between Ms. Lewinsky’s legs. But this fails the definition too. It defines "contact" as "touching, either directly or through clothing." "Direct" means skin-on-skin. "Through clothing" means skin-on-clothing or clothing-on-clothing. The Cigar incident was cigar-on-skin, which fails the definition.

Critics have yet another argument that they claim proves perjury. For Clinton’s legalistic answers to be true, he would have had to remain "hands off" during the many intimate encounters he had with Ms. Lewinsky. This is extremely unlikely, especially since Lewinsky testified that Clinton frequently touched her breasts and genitals, which is within the legal definition. In fact, the reason why Starr included so much graphic detail of Lewinsky’s testimony in his report was to show that Clinton did touch her sexually. The sheer volume of the testimony is damaging.

There are several defenses: Lewinsky may have exaggerated her testimony, or Starr may have coerced it. Another possibility, implied by Clinton himself, is that he did not touch her with "an intent to arouse or gratify." He may have been "hands on," but it might have been for his pleasure, not hers. In that case, his answers are still legally accurate. Again, this may make him sexually selfish, but that is not illegal. For critics to prove perjury, they must somehow enter Clinton’s head and prove that he did not intend to sexually gratify Ms. Lewinsky. Which, of course, is clearly impossible. Clinton may have even made a mistake by interpreting the definition too narrowly, but that is not the same thing as lying.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not my theory, it the Constitution. A sitting president is tried for a crime via impeachment.

I was proven wrong in my reading of the Constitution less than a week ago. Therefore, I present the challenge to you to prove it, and I will eat crow again. I say that the Constitution provides that impeachment is solely for the purpose of removing an official from office.

I conceded this point when I posted:

Quote

And I'm proven wrong this time.

However, upon further reading of the Constitution I have to heavily qualify, if not completely retract that concession.

From the US Constitution, Article One, Section 3:

Quote

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Notice how a "Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment"? The implication seems that a party acquitted is not further liable to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment. So, while an impeachment conviction is solely for the purpose of removal from office, the Constitution does implicitly protect parties acquitted from further prosecution for offenses grounding the impeachment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And Clinton didn't go to jail for lying about it - UNDER OATH

In the case against the chubby one in the oval office, you are just plain wrong.

Please provide the name of the Federal detention facility President Clinton reported to for his sentence.

He reported to Hillary Clinton detention center for completion of his sentence.....which is far worse than SuperMax!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment"? The implication seems that a party acquitted is not further liable to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment.

Indeed. An impeachment determines none of that. An impeachment is just to get him or her outta there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.