Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As witnesses, they are routinely advised to provide minimalist answers (e.g. yes or no), to insist that vague words in questions asked be fully defined before answering, and to volunteer no information beyond that which is necessary to answer the question. This is the way the system works. It does not work differently for Bill Clinton than it does for anybody else.
Minimalist answers yes, false testimony no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Disbarment is a discipline within the legal profession that has no connection at all to either civil or criminal law. Clinton was disbarred for violating his lawyerly oath as an officer of the court always to pursue the truth. In the Jones case, the obligation to his profession came into conflict with his rights as a citizen and as a defendant in a civil trial. Forced to choose between acting as a lawyer and acting as a citizen, he chose to act as a citizen. He was perfectly within his rights in making that choice.
There is no conflict between the two. He can refuse to answer questions but he is not allowed by the court or the bar to give false testimony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No such thing has ever been substantiated. There are six elements that must each be established in order to support a charge of perjury.
1. The witness must be under oath.
2. The witness must understand that he is under oath.
3. The witness must make a statement that is demonstrably false. (More than the testimony of one other person is required in such demonstration.)
4. The witness must have understood that the statement was false at the time it was made.
5. The statement must have been malicious -- intended to subvert the jury's ability to arrive at the truth.
6. The statement must have been malignant -- directly related to an issue germane to the matter at trial.
You can check off #1 and #2 with regard to Clinton. After that, you run into very serious difficulties.
Okay, you concede 1 and 2.
3. Blue dress
4. Did he foget?
5. Probably not the primary reason.
6. It was clearly related. If it's not, he or his attorneys can object to the line of questioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Quite to the contrary. What happens every day is that people lie under oath. Everybody knows this. Nobody cares. Lying under oath is not in itself a crime. Perjury is a crime. Actual perjury trials (much less convictions) are uncommon.
More common than you might think. People certainly do care. Yes everybody knows it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There are no examples of Clinton's having lied under oath. None was specified even within the perjury article of impeachment. Paula Jones' complaint of sexual harassment was thrown out of court on its merits. Her case, even if it had been entirely substantiated, would have established no more than that Clinton behaved in a boorish manner. There never was evidence of harassment. and her lawyers knew that. Had the defendant not been WJ Clinton, the case would have been tossed out long before it was.
Clearly he lied under oath.
The discussion was never about the point of the Jones case. However, that case was not thrown out because he didn't do anything wrong, it was thrown out because she could not show damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Jones could have setlled for $700K in 1997. Her first set of lawyers, knowing the quality of her case, quit over her refusal to do so. Her second set of lawyers, the ones sent in by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Rutherford Institute, had interests other than those of Paula Jones in mind. They had insisted they would not settle for a penny less than $2 million. Then their case got thrown out of court. The final settlement came against the backdrop of their need to somehow get the case back into the courts. Almost all of the settlement, by the way, went to those attorneys. Jones herself got almost literally nothing. Hence the need for the centerfold.
So Jones is not very smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The Jones case was about sexual harassment. By definition, harassment does not occur within a consensual relationship. There must be unwanted advances. In contrast, Clinton's realtionship with Lewinsky was entirely consensual and was in fact driven primarily by Lewinsky herself. There are no patterns of behavior within such a consensual relationship that are illustrative of or relevant to a person's potential tendencies or behaviors in a non-consensual setting.
I'm not the jury or the lawyers for Paula Jones, and I'm not discussing their legal strategy. The discussion was about Clinton's dishonesty.
lots of hostility against the clintons. conspiracy theories.
huge prosperity during this period. best in a long long time.
i dont like to get into personalities. im a successful business person.
i like everything to run real smooth. its not.
we need a change badly. when everything is going to hell in
a handbasket everybody starts finger pointing like crazy.
we need a change asap.
saganista - how is it inaccurate to state:
Bill Clinton is a proven liar. He was found in contempt of court for deposition testimony that was "intentionally false".
Issuance of the contempt citation was entirely Judge Wright's doing. It came with respect to an order that she both issued and interpreted. Her finding has nothing to do with proof. It was her own conclusion and nothing more. No evidence. No adversarial proceedings. Just Judge Wright. Clinton could have contested the citation, but that would have meant full-blown hearings, opening the door to even more partisan grandstanding from the other side. Meanwhile, Clinton's testimony in the two areas Judge Wright cited -- whether he was alone with Lewinsky and whether they had 'sexual relations' -- was legally accurate. It's hard to derive 'proven liar' from accurate statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
He was disbarred in Arkansas for "serious misconduct and defines the term as involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation".
Again, the disbarment in Arkansas had nothing to do with lying. It was handed down for his failure, as a lawyer and therefore an officer of the court, always to act in pursuit of the truth. As a lawyer, he is compelled to take affirmative steps that an ordinary citizen is under no compulsion to take at all. As Clinton himself later described, he tried in his testimony to reveal as little information as possible while still answering questions truthfully. He was perfectly well within his rights as a citizen to have taken that approach. But not within the bounds permitted by his oath as an officer of the court.
Issuance of the contempt citation was entirely Judge Wright's doing. It came with respect to an order that she both issued and interpreted. Her finding has nothing to do with proof. It was her own conclusion and nothing more. No evidence. No adversarial proceedings. Just Judge Wright. Clinton could have contested the citation, but that would have meant full-blown hearings, opening the door to even more partisan grandstanding from the other side. Meanwhile, Clinton's testimony in the two areas Judge Wright cited -- whether he was alone with Lewinsky and whether they had 'sexual relations' -- was legally accurate. It's hard to derive 'proven liar' from accurate statements.
Again, the disbarment in Arkansas had nothing to do with lying. It was handed down for his failure, as a lawyer and therefore an officer of the court, always to act in pursuit of the truth. As a lawyer, he is compelled to take affirmative steps that an ordinary citizen is under no compulsion to take at all. As Clinton himself later described, he tried in his testimony to reveal as little information as possible while still answering questions truthfully. He was perfectly well within his rights as a citizen to have taken that approach. But not within the bounds permitted by his oath as an officer of the court.
How is his testimony about being alone with her and having sexual relations accurate?
I don't think anyone cared about him giving little information, but he did not answer truthfully.
Where is the false testimony? Which statement did Clinton make under oath that was demonstrably false?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
There is no conflict between the two. He can refuse to answer questions but he is not allowed by the court or the bar to give false testimony.
There is a huge difference between the two. On the one side, you have the US Code (i.e., the actual law), and on the other, you have a code of ethics adopted by a particular professional organization, in this case the ABA and its state affiliates. Otherwise, see the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Okay, you concede 1 and 2.
3. Blue dress
What statement in Clinton's testimony under oath is made demonstrably false by the blue dress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
4. Did he forget?
Forget what? Unless there was a statement that was false, there is no way that Clinton could have understood that statement to be false at the time he made it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
5. Probably not the primary reason.
That's not much of a leap over this hurdle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
6. It was clearly related. If it's not, he or his attorneys can object to the line of questioning.
In what way is consensual adult activity related to sexual harassment, which by definition must include unwanted advances. Where is the mode of connection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
More common than you might think. People certainly do care. Yes everybody knows it happens.
Well, you don't know what I might think, but ask any prosecutor how excited he would be to take on a perjury case. It doesn't happen often. Meanwhile, adversarial proceedings are a contest between at least two stories, at least one of which is false. Falsehood is as much a part of the proceedings as truth. It amounts to perjury only when it satisfies all six of the conditions listed earlier. Otherwise, it's just more garden-variety falsehood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Clearly he lied under oath.
If this were so clear, where are the specifics that such clarity illuminates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
The discussion was never about the point of the Jones case. However, that case was not thrown out because he didn't do anything wrong, it was thrown out because she could not show damages.
It was thrown out because there was no basis in fact or in law on which to support a charge of sexual harassment. And that is so, even if every element claimed by Jones were assumed to have been true. If there was a law in Arkansas against exposing oneself to another within the privacy of a hotel room that the other had voluntarily entered, then Jones should have pursued her remedy under that law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
So Jones is not very smart.
Granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
I'm not the jury or the lawyers for Paula Jones, and I'm not discussing their legal strategy. The discussion was about Clinton's dishonesty.
It's been more about Clinton's reticence than his dishonesty, the latter having not yet been shown. The point of there being relevance in the Lewinsky affair to the claims made by Paula Jones has meanwhile been made here, but not supported. In what way could the merits of Jones' claims have been improved by citing behavior that occurred under entirely different circumstances many years later?
lots of hostility against the clintons. conspiracy theories.
huge prosperity during this period. best in a long long time.
i dont like to get into personalities. im a successful business person.
i like everything to run real smooth. its not.
we need a change badly. when everything is going to hell in
a handbasket everybody starts finger pointing like crazy.
we need a change asap.
You are soooo right.
The finger pointing gets ridiculous when there are so many bigger ,newer issues that despertly need to handled soon. It seems the worse this countrys problems the more finger pointing there is.
All of them lie.
Bush lied also when he himself stated "you need a warrant to wiretap" and all the while he knew they were already wiretapping.
No it wasn't under oath but, we all heard this lie.
How is his testimony about being alone with her and having sexual relations accurate? I don't think anyone cared about him giving little information, but he did not answer truthfully.
Hmmm. I thought I had replied to this last night. But I don't see it now.
In any case, with regard to the question of Clinton's having been alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office, one needs to start with the definition of the term. None had been previously agreed upon when the question was asked. While all one ever sees on TV is the President's office itself, the Oval Office includes a study, a kitchen, a dining room, a secretary's area, closets and storage rooms, and various halls that connect them all. There are also small offices that are not directly connected to the President's office. If you were to have asked the President's secretary where she worked, she would have said, the Oval Office. If you had asked the Navy stewards who man the kitchen where they worked, they would have said, the Oval Office. Even some of the aides who work in those small outer offices might well have said, the Oval Office. That is the way the term is actually used. It is extremely unlikely that, even when Clinton and Lewinksy were alone in the President's office, they were alone in the Oval Office. There would have been other people in and around under almost any conceivable circumstance. That is what Clinton testified to in the Paula Jones deposition. He did not at any time indicate that he and Lewinsky had NOT been alone in the Oval Office, only that it would have been unlikely and that he did not specifically recall such a time. From the transcript of Jan 17, 1998...
Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollections of that ever happening?
A. Yes, that's correct.
As to sexual relations, one must guard against using any street definition of the term. Specifically on account of its vagueness, lawyers for Jones had written and those for Clinton had approved a set of specific statements defining what would and would not constitute sexual relations for the purposes at hand. Those statements were approved by Judge Wright, who in fact struck two paragraphs from them for having been themselves too vague. The remaining text was the definition that all involved were then agreed to abide by. When Clinton was asked whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, his lawyer objected, noting that the witness might not be familiar with the definition as amended and asked that a copy be provided to him. The judge agreed, and Clinton was given a copy of the amended definition. After studying it briefly, his answer was no, I never did. Here is the definition he was handed. In context, 'a person' means Clinton and 'any person' means Lewinsky...
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes 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. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
Note that Clinton's receiving oral sex from Lewinsky is not covered by this definition under any circumstances, and Clinton's touching any part of Lewinsky isn't either, if he did it solely for purposes of his own gratification and couldn't have cared less what Lewinsky might have gotten out of it.
Don't like that? Not surprising. But Clinton didn't write the definition. Paula Jones' attorneys did. All Clinton did was answer the question he was asked. Accurately. The Jones attorneys also had the opportunity, one they were invited to take by Clinton's attorneys, to ask appropriate follow-up questions, one of which might have been, has Ms Lewinsky ever had sexual relations with you? But they didn't do that. They moved on to their next set of questions. If there was any crime here at all, it was one of prosecutorial incompetence. Either way, there is no way to construe perjury on the part of Clinton for providing an accurate answer to the question he was asked.
well if the left wished to attack regan as much as the right likes to attack clinton then perhaps the conversation would be a bit more fair in the arena of "b*tching about the past".....
if we wanna talk about past presidents.. then lets go ahead and do that... and anyone that has any foresight into it all.. can definetely relate to the economy and buying a house now days... as much as they did in the early-mid 80's....
well if the left wished to attack regan as much as the right likes to attack clinton then perhaps the conversation would be a bit more fair in the arena of "b*tching about the past".....
if we wanna talk about past presidents.. then lets go ahead and do that... and anyone that has any foresight into it all.. can definetely relate to the economy and buying a house now days... as much as they did in the early-mid 80's....
You might have a valid point, except for the fact that this thread is not about past Presidents. It is about a current ex-President once again lying through his teeth as usual. If only he would learn to keep his lying mouth shut this thread would never have existed.
You might have a valid point, except for the fact that this thread is not about past Presidents. It is about a current ex-President once again lying through his teeth as usual. If only he would learn to keep his lying mouth shut this thread would never have existed.
I don't understand how he's lying? he's NOT the president.. he is not in the hot seat.. so anything he says is his opinion just like you and me... He can give his opinions of what he would do etc etc.... and what he thinks should be done.. and he is not responsible or in direct control of what happens by president bush.. or how his wife votes....
I don't get what you're saying... the opening line in this thread points to his opinions.. like he is leading the nation still.. like it really matters.. when it didn't and still doesn't.. he's not in that position anymore...
what are you getting at?
he ran the nation durring his term to the best of his ability.. and to say that because he got his little willy sucked in the oval office... he's automatically not doing his job correctly...
last time I checked.. people have personal lives.. and they have a right to privacy.. one thing most republican conservatives squak about consistantly.. wah wah wah.. I want the government out of my personal life.. wah wah wah.. yet they're quick to hang a man for having an affair.. because he happens to be the president of the united states.. and is affiliated with a party other than their own....
lets talk about all the high powered corporate people in america and all their influence.. and lets string their laundry out...
its just like larry craig... his business should have been his business... but he made it the publics business by committing a crime.. THATS different...
I would hope that if something in your marriage happened like this.. that you would be given the respect of privacy.. to not be ridiculed at your job and on the street...so that you and your significant other could properly work it out...
I'm a teacher.. if I cheat on my significant other... does that make me a bad teacher?... give me a break...
read your good book one more time.... u missed the part about judge not lest ye be judged...
his personal affairs have nothing to do with the job he was elected to do....and the republicans did a fantastic job of probing under every rock to find a reason.. and they didn't... because the fact still remains that it has to be proven it impaired his judgement and ability to do his job.. and it didn't
how many past presidents republican and democrat have had mistresses...and many were good presidents...
you can be a total jerk and be a good president.. and you can be a really good guy.. and a terrible president..
I just don't get what you're saying here... its ridiculous.. his term is over and done with... let it be... if you don't like things now.. its safe to say after 2 terms.. take it up with ole bush and his decisions... afterall he's the one in the hot seat...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
