1
   

DEEP THROAT

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:42 am
Quote:
Nixon, tried by the press and not by any judge or court, most likely did not order or know about the activities that brought him down until after the fact, And then his crime was attempting to cover up those embarassing activities.


I don't know how these people do it. The head of Enron didn't know nothing, the head of Worldcom didn't know nothing, now here comes Nixon didn't know nothing either. Man, I want to get a job like that, where you don't have to know anything about what's going on on your watch, in your company, in your re-election committee, you just have to show up and smile.

Joe(Shaz-zamm)Nation

PS The activities were not embarrassing, they were illegal and they weren't activities, they were crimes. And if you think for a moment that Richard Nixon didn't know what his CREEP minions were doing, not just at the Watergate but throughout this country*, I've got a bridge to sell you.

*We know now that there were some fifty employees of CREEP who broke into offices, bugged phones, sent phony letters and other dirty tricks.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:44 am
The Arkansas bar suspended him from trying cases for five years and if you can find where the Supreme Court has barred him permanently from arguing cases I'd like to see it. Prosecution for obstruction of justic, perjury or violating the rights of a private citizen never came before a judge or jury.

Nixon's "embarrasing" activities in using the FBI and CIA to support his cover-up and allowing hush money to be paid to those involved is a thousand times more serious than a personal sexual harrassment case. Anyone remember what happened to Paula Jones after the travesty? She had more than her fifteen minutes of fame and it was highly uplifting (at least to her face).

Not to mention what I personally know about Nixon from a personal friend in Orange County who was high up in the administration. He will remain at the bottom of the list of effective or loved Presidents.
Clinton is in virtually the same spot as Bush Jr.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:02 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Nixon, tried by the press and not by any judge or court, most likely did not order or know about the activities that brought him down until after the fact, And then his crime was attempting to cover up those embarassing activities.

That is the point, I believe the cartoon posted by McG intended to emphasize, and the double standard applied by some to those who blow the whistle on high level offenders.


Nixon chose not to be tried by judge, court or Congress. He resigned.

Nixon was the force behind Watergate although he may not have been the mind in the sense of day-to-day planning.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:20 am
Look here LW
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/

This article also shows that Nixon resigned his right to argue before the Supremes. From other sources, I find that Clinton offerred a rebuttal to the high court's ruling but I can find nothing to indicate that they ever made a ruling re the rebuttal. If he (Clinton) did not pursue it, then the disbarment would have become permanent.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 10:51 am
You admit the spin that Clinton was permanently disbared in Arkansas, leaving out any comment on the fact that he was never charged with breaking any law. I believe that process to lift the ban on arguing cases before the Supreme Court is still in process but may take several more years. In any case, your statements were misleading and of the ilk of Dan Rather and Newsweek.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 10:56 am
Those who still belive Nixon was as pure as the driven snow and did nothing wrong save piss of the press should seak cognitive therepy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:07 am
LW I never said Clinton was permanently disbarred from the Arkansas Bar. If you can find anyplace where I even suggested that, please post the link.

I never said Nixon was as pure as the driven snow. If you can find anyplace where I even suggested that, please post the link.

In case you don't know, contempt of court is illegal. It is breaking the law which is why the judge holds the person in contempt. In case you don't know, perjury is breaking the law. It was for that the Arkansas Bar suspended Clinton's license to practice law in Arkansas. The Supreme Court does not revoke court privileges for innocent attorneys.

I was clear that I do not know whether the Supreme Court ruled favorably or will rule favorably or unfavorably in the case of Bill Clinton's appeal. The last I heard, he had decided not to pursue it as it was unlikely he would ever have a reason to argue a case before the Supremes, and then there is no other information readily available on it.

Now if you care to show how my comments were any way misleading, go for it. I would suggest if this isn't sufficient for you, it isn't me who needs cognitive therapy.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 11:49 am
You implied by leaving out he was suspended for a limited time that he was permanently disbarred and you are still overlooking that he was never charged with any crime.

Contempt of court is hardly comparable to Nixon's transgressions -- many U.S. Presidents if were objectively analyzed have committed more serious wrong doing, even if not something which would be criminally prosecuted, than contempt of court.

In the end, Linda may be notorious but has one tenth the notoriety of Deep Throat. That's just plain history -- she will sink into near oblivion while Felt will be a prominent phenomena of the late 20th Century as whistle blowers go.

So my whistle blower is better than your whistle blower is not only a childish game but only proves one again how tricky Tricky Dick really was.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:00 pm
Suspended implies to me that it is stopped for a specified or unspecified duration. What does 'suspended' mean to you? I can't help it if you have a problem with semantics KW. If I meant permanently, I would have said permanently suspended or more likely permanently disbarred.

You said Clinton was charged with no crime. Contempt of court is a crime. I was just pointing out your error.

If Nixon had been impeached, it would have been for obstruction of justice and possibly perjury. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. Why they committed the obstruction of justice and perjury is immaterial. The why is not relevant when the charge is made. You said Clinton was charged with no crime. I was just pointing out your error. (And, as Nixon did, Clinton could have avoided the impeachment by resigning.)

You can argue which crime was worse. You can argue which crime hurt the most people. That, however, was not my point which was that the whole Clinton issue was much more than a 'blow job' and the whole Nixon issue was much more than a 'third rate burglary'.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:06 pm
Disbarrment can also be non-permanent. Just stating "suspended" is a rhetorical semantic trick, on purpose or not.

You are not charged with a crime when fined or incarcerated for contempt of court. It's a court procedure that ends there -- otherwise, it would be prosecuted as a criminal case which, in the case of some judges, may be threatened in the course of a trial.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
LW, I can't help what conclusions you draw from what is said. Reasonable people ask if they think somebody might have mispoken. Those with that cognitively challenged problem you mentioned just rant and rave and make accusations, and then try to justify it when called on it.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Just as a point of clarification, the 'blow job' was not the issue. The issue was obstruction of justice and lying to a lawfully assembled grand jury and, in the process, violating the rights of a private citizen. A federal judge agreed and held him in contempt of court. The Arkansas Bar Association agreed and suspended him from practice. The Supreme Court of the USA agreed and barred him from arguing cases before the high court forever.

Nixon, tried by the press and not by any judge or court, most likely did not order or know about the activities that brought him down until after the fact, And then his crime was attempting to cover up those embarassing activities.

That is the point, I believe the cartoon posted by McG intended to emphasize, and the double standard applied by some to those who blow the whistle on high level offenders.


Um, back up and look at the cartoon again, foxfy. It is comparing Deep Throat's actions to Linda Tripp's actions which got her "deep sixed." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't she tattling that President Clinton left some jism on the front of a blue dress? Had he even been in front of the grand jury for that matter at that point in time? No, he hadn't. So, the point of the cartoon was to point to the similarities between one situation and the other, which are pretty much nil. Nixon was breaking the law, knowingly breaking the law by illegally wiretapping phones and equally reprehensible practices at the time Deep Throat blew the whistle and pointed the press in the right direction. Linda Tripp illegally taped a phone conversation between herself and a silly bimbo and turned over the incriminating evidence that our president was getting a little sumpin on the side, with a willing participant, not any crime. They were high level offenders, but only one was participating in a crime at the time the whistle blew.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:08 pm
The Lewinsky affair was evidence associated with a grand jury investigation of possible obstruction of justice related to Paul Jone's suit brought against President Clinton. The affair itself was disgusting and demeaning to the presidential office but in itself was not illegal. That Paula Jones named Monica Lewinsky as a witness in her legal action put it into a new category. When Clinton denied the affair to the grand jury, it then became perjury.

Two different cases involving very different circumstances but arriving at the same verdict. No elected official should be allowed to commit perjury with impunity.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:16 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The Lewinsky affair was evidence associated with a grand jury investigation of possible obstruction of justice related to Paul Jone's suit brought against President Clinton. The affair itself was disgusting and demeaning to the presidential office but in itself was not illegal. That Paula Jones named Monica Lewinsky as a witness in her legal action put it into a new category. When Clinton denied the affair to the grand jury, it then became perjury.

Two different cases involving very different circumstances but arriving at the same verdict. No elected official should be allowed to commit perjury with impunity.


That is the very heart of the difference between Tripp and Felt.

Felt tattled only after the alleged crime occurred. Tripp tattled before any testimony that leads to the alleged crime you bring up. Tripp had no evidence of any criminal act. She had already told her story before Clinton ever testified.

Felt revealed Crimes. Tripp was a gossip.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The Lewinsky affair was evidence associated with a grand jury investigation of possible obstruction of justice related to Paul Jone's suit brought against President Clinton. The affair itself was disgusting and demeaning to the presidential office but in itself was not illegal. That Paula Jones named Monica Lewinsky as a witness in her legal action put it into a new category. When Clinton denied the affair to the grand jury, it then became perjury.

Two different cases involving very different circumstances but arriving at the same verdict. No elected official should be allowed to commit perjury with impunity.


I'm not quite sure how you can claim they arrive at the same verdict, Foxfy. Perhaps you'll have to 'xplain it to me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:22 pm
Are you sure Parados? I think I remember the sequence of events as being that Lewinsky was named and denied and THEN the Tripp information came up. And the prosecutors sent Tripp out to get the evidence. I could be wrong though. I'm getting older and forgetful about some things. So I'm not positive of the sequence here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:35 pm
Princess, 'the same verdict' was perjury. It's a very specific crime meaning telling a intentional untruth under oath. Also 'obstruction of justice' was involved which loosely defined means to intentionally take action to prevent legal evidence from being presented.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 01:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Are you sure Parados? I think I remember the sequence of events as being that Lewinsky was named and denied and THEN the Tripp information came up. And the prosecutors sent Tripp out to get the evidence. I could be wrong though. I'm getting older and forgetful about some things. So I'm not positive of the sequence here.


Well, I'm positive of the sequence, which can be looked up many places online (foxfy, fyi, wikipedia can usually be a good starting place for chronological order, then if you don't trust them as a source, search elsewhere online for corroboration.) Tripp's taping began in the fall of 1997, first talks to Starr about it 1/12/98. Clinton doesn't testify before the Grand jury until 8/17/98. The break-in, 6/16/72, which began Watergate, preceded Deep Throat's coming forward. The payoff for the burglaries and taping was traced back to the president's reelection campaign prior to the Grand Jury subpoenas. The smoking gun tape was found to be from 6/23/72 (released 8/74) recorded only a few days after the break-in, in which Nixon and Haldeman formulated the plan to block investigations by raising bogus national security claims. Nixon resigned 8/9/74. They are such dissimilar situations, I cannot imagine how anyone could find any correlating points between the 2 whistle blowers. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:02 pm
republican rule #2

"all roads lead to clinton, no matter how winding the detour".

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:12 pm
Well in this case Nixon and Clinton Dtom. Since we haven't had anything comparable in the GWB administration yet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DEEP THROAT
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 03:53:10