1
   

DEEP THROAT

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:12 pm
clinton
Foxfyre wrote:
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'.



Any attempt to compare the charges against Clinton with the charges against Nixon by merely claiming that BOTH were charged with obstruction of justice (an impeachable crime) is ridiculous. The two are NOT similarly situated.


Clinton Impeachment

SUMMARY

May 6, 1994: Paula Jones files lawsuit against Clinton concerning alleged incident occurring in 1991 when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas.

Clinton seeks to delay lawsuit while Clinton is serving as President.

May 27, 1997: Clinton v. Jones (SC rules that lawsuit may proceed).

Pretrial Discovery Commences.

Ms. Lewinsky's name was provided Paula Jones' attorneys by Linda Tripp, a former White House employee who had become a confidante of Ms. Lewinsky and had secretly tape recorded various conversations she had with Lewinsky relating to her contacts with the President.

January 12, 1998: Ms. Tripp provided the tapes of her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr (re: Whitewater Investigation).

January 12, 1998: The same day Tripp supplied the tapes to Starr, Ms. Lewinsky's sworn affidavit was sent by her lawyers to the Jones attorneys in which she asserted in part:

"I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship."

January 15, 1998: Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations.

January 16, 1998: A meeting between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp at a hotel was secretly recorded pursuant to a court order, with federal agents then confronting Ms. Lewinsky at the end of the meeting with charges of her perjury and demanding that she cooperate in providing evidence against the President. Ms. Lewinsky initially declined to cooperate, and told the FBI and other investigators that much of what she had told Ms. Tripp was not true.

January 17, 1998: Clinton deposition in Jones lawsuit. Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her.

January 21, 1998: The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky.

January 26, 1998: President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.

The President's attorneys failed in efforts to block Starr's expansion of his investigation, which also included whether the President himself had lied under oath in his own deposition taken in the Paula Jones litigation.

July 1998: After being granted sweeping immunity from prosecution by Special Prosecutor Starr, Ms. Lewinsky admitted that she in fact had had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse, but denied that she had ever been asked to lie about the relationship by the President or by those close to him.

August 17, 1998: The President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House. 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.

September 9, 1998: Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was substantial and credible information that President Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false.

December 16, 1998: The Judiciary Committee approved four articles of impeachment for presentation to the full House, and on December 16 released its full Report supporting its recommendation.

After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

January 7, 1999: Impeachment Trial commences in the Senate.


February 12, 1999: The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

CLINTON faced impeachment proceedings and he was ACQUITTED.


COMPARE: Nixon Articles of Impeachment, July 30, 1974:

Quote:
Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)



August 9, 1974: NIXON refused to face impeachment proceedings and RESIGNED. Instead, Nixon was granted a FULL PARDON for any crimes he may have committed as president.

Quote:
On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in. (Real Audio :06 "...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.)

That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President.


Again, any attempt to compare the charges against Clinton with the charges against Nixon by merely claiming that BOTH were charged with obstruction of justice (an impeachable crime) is ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:28 pm
We haven't?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 02:35 pm
I don't believe GWB has been held in contempt of court or charged with perjury.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 03:50 pm
Clinton was not charged with perjury. The hole you've dug for yourself is deep enough to hold the elephant in the room. Now I can only conclude you're just being silly.
0 Replies
 
AllanSwann
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 04:06 pm
At the risk of throwing gasoline on the fire (and preaching to most of the voices in this choir), comparing Watergate to Monicagate is like comparing World War II to Reagan invading Grenada. Watergate was a President abusing the powers of his office to stop so-called leaks and "enemies" of his administration. Monicagate was a husband dissembling under oath about an affair he'd not fessed up to his (first and most importantly) his wife, which never should have been the business of Ken Starr, Congress or, for that matter, this country.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 04:50 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't believe GWB has been held in contempt of court or charged with perjury.


So far, no we don't. But you never know what the next Deep Throat may reveal... recently a memo was leaked about Intelligence facts being "fixed." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9035.htm Maybe this is the tip of another iceberg, eh? Idea
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 05:28 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well in this case Nixon and Clinton Dtom. Since we haven't had anything comparable in the GWB administration yet.


Laughing

if nothing else, it will be interesting to see if we can actually have a president leave office without the sword of damocles hanging over him.

but, i still think that there's been some underhanded stuff goin' on in dubya land. guess we'll all have to tune in for the exciting conclusion...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 09:02 am
LW writes
Quote:
Clinton was not charged with perjury. The hole you've dug for yourself is deep enough to hold the elephant in the room. Now I can only conclude you're just being silly.


Really? Do you have a different word for lying under oath?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 09:05 am
Dtom writes

Quote:
f nothing else, it will be interesting to see if we can actually have a president leave office without the sword of damocles hanging over him.

but, i still think that there's been some underhanded stuff goin' on in dubya land. guess we'll all have to tune in for the exciting conclusion...


I wouldn't even dare suggest GWB will get through eight years without a major scandal, especially with all you anti-Bush types with your nose on the ground searching...even hoping....for one. Smile

So far, however, I do believe he has had the most scandal free administration in my memory at least since Truman.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 09:29 am
Fox,
Sometimes I have to shake my head at your comments. People point out factual errors in your statements and you blythely continue on as if they were never pointed out.

Clinton was never charged with perjury. That is a simple fact.

Lots of people have claimed he committed it but no one has shown it nor was he ever indicted for it. Perjury requires that several standards be met. Failure to meet those standards means you can't show perjury.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 09:55 am
parados wrote:
Quote:
Clinton was never charged with perjury. That is a simple fact.

Lots of people have claimed he committed it but no one has shown it nor was he ever indicted for it. Perjury requires that several standards be met. Failure to meet those standards means you can't show perjury.

Yes, he was was charged with perjury. It was article I in his impeachment. He was aquitted by the Senate. You cannot be aquitted if you aren't charged.

Quote:
Perjury article: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.


Full text of article

February 12: Rejected by the Senate, 55-45 (needed 67 votes to convict -- Roll call)
December 19: Approved by the House, 228 - 206 (Roll call)
December 11: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 21-16 (Roll call)
(Amended by a 21-16 vote. See draft version)

Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 10:03 am
You'll have to really stretch to conclude there was no perjury; also that Clinton did not encourage Lewinsky (and others) to commit perjury. But I will concede that Clinton, who just happened to be an attorney, might have worded his answers in such a way as to give himself loopholes. But as Tommr points out, the charge was included in the articles of impeachment.

Quote:
House Approves Articles Alleging Perjury, Obstruction
By Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 20, 1998; Page A1

The House of Representatives impeached the president of the United States yesterday for only the second time in American history, charging William Jefferson Clinton with "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an Oval Office affair with a young intern.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach122098.htm


What Is Clinton's Perjury Defense?
Bruce Gottlieb
Posted Friday, Dec. 18, 1998, at 12:12 PM PT


President Clinton still insists he has not committed perjury. Given what we know, is that possible? What exactly is his argument?

Until last week, the president never backed up his assertion of innocence with any details. During the House Judiciary Committee hearings, though, Clinton's legal team released a 184-page document which defends the president in highly specific terms.

First, a brush-up on the definition of perjury. Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner--so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.

Even so, does Clinton have a case? Here are the accusations and Clinton's replies:

Perjury #1A: Undefined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers asked whether Clinton had had a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He answered no. His lawyers argue that Clinton believes "sexual affair" means "sexual intercourse." If this is indeed what Clinton believes--and since no one has alleged that Clinton and Lewinsky had sexual intercourse--his testimony wasn't perjurious. Clinton's defenders have pointed to several dictionaries to show that his definition is not completely eccentric. Moreover, Lewinsky says Clinton told her he belives sexual intercourse and sexual relations to be equivalent terms.

Perjury #1B: Defined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers handed Clinton a now famous definition of "sexual relations"--"contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"--and asked whether he'd had these sort of relations with Lewinsky. Clinton answered no. Kenneth Starr asked Clinton the same question before a grand jury, and again Clinton answered no.

Clinton's lawyers point out that "this narrow definition did not include certain physical acts." This, of course, is an indirect way of saying that it doesn't include oral sex. But what about Lewinsky's claim that Clinton touched her breasts? Clinton's lawyers admit that if Lewinsky is correct then Clinton perjured himself. But they point out that, under Federal law, one person's testimony is not enough to prove perjury. (The Supreme Court has ruled that perjury cannot be proved by "an oath against an oath.") So Clinton's lawyers are technically correct in concluding that "this is not a case of perjury ... the factual record would not support a prosecution for perjury."

The emphasis here is less on I-didn't-do-it than on you-can't-prove-it.

Perjury #2: Alone with Monica.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he was ever alone in a room with Lewinsky. Clinton answered "I don't recall." Later Jones' attorneys asked whether it was possible that they were alone, even though Clinton had no specific memory of such an event, and Clinton answered yes.

Clinton's lawyers say that "the president did not testify that he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky." The lawyers say the second comment--that they might have been alone together even though he doesn't remember it--makes this clear. He was just saying he doesn't recall. But saying you don't recall something when you really do is a false assertion of fact and therefore is perjury just as much as denying that same something outright. The only difference is that it is a lot harder to prove.

Perjury #3: Giving and receiving gifts.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he had given or received gifts from Monica Lewinsky. He said he'd definitely given her a gift from the Black Dog, a store on Martha's Vineyard. He said he wasn't sure whether he'd given her a book, and he'd received gifts from her "once or twice." We know that many more gifts were exchanged.

Clinton's lawyers reply that he admitted to giving and receiving some gifts. They contend this is the only "material" issue. Of course not everyone agrees about what is material, but it's a reasonable legal defense--lies must be important to count as perjury. Clinton's lawyers also argue that they weren't willful falsehoods--that Clinton believed he was telling the truth. The argument is that if he'd wanted to lie about the gifts, he'd have denied receiving any at all. So the fact that he admitted to a few suggests that he intended to be truthful. Another argument, which Clinton's lawyers do not make but others have, is that it's technically true to say you have received one or two gifts when you have received a total of 40.

Perjury #4A: Conversations with Lewinsky

Jones' attorneys asked Clinton to say when he last met with Lewinsky. Clinton said he wasn't sure, but it was "probably sometime before Christmas." Clinton was also asked if, at that time, she said she had been subpoenaed. (The questioners were trying to establish that Clinton pressured Lewinsky to lie.) Clinton said, "I don't know." It is undisputed that, at their last meeting on Dec. 28, Lewinsky said she'd been subpoenaed.

Clinton's lawyers maintain that it's unclear whether Clinton was even talking about the Dec. 28 meeting when he said "I don't know." Since he had claimed not to remember any meeting after Christmas, it's possible the "I don't know" referred to their last meeting before Christmas, where he and Lewinsky in fact didn't discuss her subpoena.

Perjury #4B: Conversations with Vernon Jordan about Lewinsky

Vernon Jordan testified before the grand jury that he had two conversations with Lewinsky in Dec. 1997, and that he told Clinton about both. Both times, Jordan says, he mentioned that Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Jones' lawyers asked Clinton whether anyone other than his attorneys had told Clinton about the subpoenas. Clinton said "I don't think so," then another question was asked, and Clinton replied "Bruce Lindsey ...[was] the first person [who] told me she was [subpoenaed]."

Clinton's lawyers claim that this second answer ("Bruce Lindsey ... [was] the first...") didn't answer the intervening question but finished the first answer ("I don't think so") instead. And since the fact that Bruce Lindsey was the first to mention the subpoena isn't inconsistent with Jordan's testimony--Jordan might have been the second or third--the lawyers say it's not proof of perjury.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Robert Luskin of Comey, Boyd & Luskin in Washington, D.C., for his help.

Bruce Gottlieb is a law student and a former Slate staff writer
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002007/
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 10:20 am
BBB
Why is it that every time anyone posts anything about the Bush Administration or it's supporters apologists are compelled to dig up something to criticize about President Clinton.

In denial diversion tactics?

BBB
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 10:53 am
tommrr wrote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
Clinton was never charged with perjury. That is a simple fact.

Lots of people have claimed he committed it but no one has shown it nor was he ever indicted for it. Perjury requires that several standards be met. Failure to meet those standards means you can't show perjury.

Yes, he was was charged with perjury. It was article I in his impeachment. He was aquitted by the Senate. You cannot be aquitted if you aren't charged.

Quote:
Perjury article: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.


Full text of article

February 12: Rejected by the Senate, 55-45 (needed 67 votes to convict -- Roll call)
December 19: Approved by the House, 228 - 206 (Roll call)
December 11: Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, 21-16 (Roll call)
(Amended by a 21-16 vote. See draft version)

Source


Impeachment article is not a legal indictment. It is compared to "indictment" to make it easier to understand but it is not an indictment. It all comes down to the correct usage of words which is what I was pointing out to Fox.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 11:00 am
Foxfyre wrote:
You'll have to really stretch to conclude there was no perjury; also that Clinton did not encourage Lewinsky (and others) to commit perjury. But I will concede that Clinton, who just happened to be an attorney, might have worded his answers in such a way as to give himself loopholes.

But somehow the fact that he gave himself loopholes doesn't prevent you from stating he committed perjury as if it was fact.

I don't have to stretch at all to claim he didn't commit perjury. You have to stretch the meaning of the world "perjury" and its legal requirements to claim he did.

As LW stated, you have a rather large elephant in that hole.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 11:04 am
BBB is right, this is far off topic.

To go back a few spaces. It is a very large leap to compare Tripp to Felt as we stated.

Felt revealed existing crimes. Tripp did it for personal gain before any laws were even alleged to have been broken let alone the crimes she is claiming Tripp revealed.

We can argue all we want about whether Clinton's statements to the GJ were perjury or not. It doesn't change the fact that Tripp was blabbing to the press almost 12 months PRIOR to the alleged perjury.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 11:25 am
Parados
parados wrote:
BBB is right, this is far off topic.

To go back a few spaces. It is a very large leap to compare Tripp to Felt as we stated.

Felt revealed existing crimes. Tripp did it for personal gain before any laws were even alleged to have been broken let alone the crimes she is claiming Tripp revealed.

We can argue all we want about whether Clinton's statements to the GJ were perjury or not. It doesn't change the fact that Tripp was blabbing to the press almost 12 months PRIOR to the alleged perjury.


One must not forget that the taped telephone conversations by Tripp clearly show that she was trying to set up her "friend" Monica to get evidence on Clinton. She even persuaded Monica to save the stained blue dress (which Monica was going to discard) to create evidence against Clinton. Tripp was leading Monica on when she didn't know her "friend" was taping her and betraying her.

Tripp is a world class bottom feeder. Monica was a silly girl in love with an icon of power. As Henry Kissinger once said, power is a powerful aphrodisiac.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 12:54 pm
BBB writes
Quote:
Why is it that every time anyone posts anything about the Bush Administration or it's supporters apologists are compelled to dig up something to criticize about President Clinton.


In this case, I believe if you go back a few pages you will find that it was not our side but rather your side that brought up Clinton; i.e. something to the effect that what Nixon did was far worse than anything Clinton did. If they don't want to defend that point of view, then they shouldn't bring it up.

Parados, I accept that you don't think Clinton committed perjury. But I haven't found anybody yet other than his attorneys who have made a good case for that. I don't really care enough one way or the other. I was just defending my point of view which is shared by many. I certainly don't blame you for defending your point of view which is no doubt shared by at least some.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 01:02 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Dtom writes

Quote:
f nothing else, it will be interesting to see if we can actually have a president leave office without the sword of damocles hanging over him.

but, i still think that there's been some underhanded stuff goin' on in dubya land. guess we'll all have to tune in for the exciting conclusion...


I wouldn't even dare suggest GWB will get through eight years without a major scandal, especially with all you anti-Bush types with your nose on the ground searching...even hoping....for one. Smile

hahaha! yep, guilty as charged. ya see, i didn't care for him before he took office. during the campaign, he just sort of swaggered a little too much for me. reminded me too much of some of the rich, self-entitled kids i grew up with.

i'm afraid that he has turned out to be pretty much what i expected. but, some people think he's just keen, so here we are. and for only "four more years", thankfully. :wink:


So far, however, I do believe he has had the most scandal free administration in my memory at least since Truman.


umm... i'd more likely put it that scandal free is more akin to teflon, nothing sticks, than anything else. they've been able to shrug and shuffle off more than a few dubious events.

i think what's eventually going to zing dubya and crew is an accumulation of misteps and lack of transparency. really the only thing keping them afloat is the support of the far christian right. if they don't provide what that group insists it is due, the administration is gonna get fed to the lions.

in fact, it looks like the hor d'ourves are already being served, don't ya think ?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2005 01:06 pm
Nope, it was brought up by the cartoon comparing Tripp to Felt.
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 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 04:46:46