The Democrats Gloat Thread

Asking about Monioca had nothing to do with sexual harassment....or are you making the claim that he forced himself upon her?

And now your turn, mr always hiding behind being ther inquisitor ("are you going on the record"....god, you're hilarious. What do you think you are doing, pontificating in a court of law?). Do you or do you not support politicians being questioned about non criminal sexual acts?

Will you "go on the record" as supporting the Starr crap?

What, and how many, sexual acts have you performed in your life which you would be uncomfortable answering questions about on tv in front of millions?

Details please, since you appear to consider private legal sexual matters as being appropriate to ask about in public fora.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Asking about Monioca had nothing to do with sexual harassment....or are you making the claim that he forced himself upon her?

Not my claim. Paula Jones' attorneys felt the line of inquiry to be relevant to her case, and the judge of that US Federal lawsuit, Judge Susan Webber Wright, obviously agreed with them that it was in order to allow that deposition.

I'm sure her attorneys were exploring the possibility of establishing a pattern of behavior. Jones was, after all, accusing Clinton of making crude and unwanted sexual advances toward her. It isn't that difficult to see that Clinton's sexual advances to a White House intern might be relevant to establishing such a pattern. Bear in mind this was in the context of pretrial discovery, so whether such a pattern was actually shown by the Lewinsky affair is immaterial.

Quote:

And now your turn, mr always hiding behind being ther inquisitor ("are you going on the record"....god, you're hilarious. What do you think you are doing, pontificating in a court of law?). Do you or do you not support politicians being questioned about non criminal sexual acts?

I support politicians who are lawfully under oath answering questions truthfully, whether those questions are about criminal or non-criminal sexual acts, or any other matter.

You have not confirmed it, but it appears you are still of the opinion that it was okay for Clinton to lie during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.

Quote:

Will you "go on the record" as supporting the Starr crap?

What "Starr crap" are you referring to, and what does it have to do with the fact that Clinton lied under oath in the Jones lawsuit?

Quote:

What, and how many, sexual acts have you performed in your life which you would be uncomfortable answering questions about on tv in front of millions?

Thankfully, I'm not the President of the US. I'm also not a philanderer, so it's really not a good comparison. But in any case, it would not be prudent to leave it up to me to decide whether I got to answer the questions or not. The judge decides in the first instance whether the questions are relevant. If relevant, they must be answered, and answered truthfully.

Quote:

Details please, since you appear to consider private legal sexual matters as being appropriate to ask about in public fora.

Many public officials are required to answer potentially embarrassing questions, occasionally under oath. You apparently feel it is okay to lie, -- even after having sworn to tell the truth -- under certain circumstances. I do not believe this is the case.

We know where each other stands: You think it's okay to lie ... I do not.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting there was no international shock that a sitting American President would lie under oath? Is that just expected .... de rigeur in your neck of the woods?

<raising hand>

Hey, I'm suggesting it. Over here, there was no shock. Just people wondering what all the fuzz was about.

Really, Tico, as disillusioning this may be to you, but people outside the US usually don't care too much about a president's blowjobs, even if he lies about them under oath.

0 Replies

People over here don't care too much about blow jobs either. But not even a President should be able to lie to a grand jury and to a judge and obstruct justice with impunity. Clinton was never charged with any sexual impropriety.

0 Replies

Hey, you know what? I agree!

But as long as a president is lying about his blowjobs, the "international shock" is very unlikely to occur.

0 Replies

Ah, I think the international community just has grown used to US presidents

- ordering covert actions to assasinate foreign heads of state
- supplying dictatorships with weapons of mass destruction
- financing and training terrorists and pointing them at 'enemy regimes'

And all of that before the whole blowjob affair occured. What did you think the international reaction would be?

"Oh dear, I'm really shocked by what this president is doing"?

Tsktsktsk...

0 Replies

Well maybe we take the integrity of the judicial process more seriously than we should over here. But I doubt it. At any rate I didn't see much 'shock' demonstrated here. I think most people were surprised that Clinton actually was called on the carpet. But a Federal Judge found him in contempt, the Special Prosecutor found sufficient evidence for an indictment, the House found sufficient evidence for an impeachment, the Arkansas State Bar found sufficient evidence to suspend him from the bar, and the SCOTUS found sufficient evidence to bar him from the Supreme Court pending appeal which he never did.

0 Replies

Dunno.

But you understand why people outside the US couldn't really be bothered to get too excited about the whole issue, don't you?

0 Replies

No I guess I really don't understand that. If people outside the US think it is okay to lie to a grand jury or break any other law if you are big enough or important enough, then I'm even more glad that I live here.

0 Replies

Foxy, did people in the US get really excited when Berlusconi managed to get the immunity laws changed so he would be exempt from prosecution while he was being prosecuted for corruption? No? Why not? Do all Americans think it is okay to get out of being prosecuted by changing the laws? Is that how American democracy works?

0 Replies

I don't believe I have ever said its okay to get out of being prosecuted by changing the laws. And what does that have to do with the propriety of prosecuting somebody who breaks the law? You may not have intended it, but you suggested that nobody would bother with holding your Chancellor accountable if he obstructed justice, lied to a grand jury, or committed perjury.

I am a conservative. And conservatives believe everybody should have a chance to prove their innocence if falsely charged, but that everybody should be held accountable and accept the consequences for the choices they make including choices to break the law.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe I have ever said its okay to get out of being prosecuted by changing the laws.

Good. And I don't believe I've ever said it's okay to "lie to a grand jury and to a judge and obstruct justice with impunity". Quite the contrary. When you said it shouldn't be allowed, I said

old europe wrote:

Hey, you know what? I agree!

But then, it was a completely America-intern affair. It was not like a president secretly selling weapons to a dictatorship in order to train and finance death squads in another country with it, and consequently lying about it, for example. No. Hardly any international implications there. Hence not much of an "international shock". That's what I pointed out. Then you said

Foxfyre wrote:

If people outside the US think it is okay to lie to a grand jury or break any other law if you are big enough or important enough, then I'm even more glad that I live here.

Foxy, from what I said - how did you reach the conclusion that what I implied was that "people outside the US think it is okay to lie to a grand jury or break any other law"?

0 Replies

From what you said, OE, I concluded that you think people outside the US wouldn't be much bothered by the charges against Clinton? Didn' you just say that a president lying about an affair would not rise to the level of a president lying about selling weapons....yadda yadda? Did I misunderstand you?

Or perhaps you are still under the impression that lying about sex was all there was to the Clinton fiasco. Most of us thought the sex part pretty disgusting, but would not have condemned him for that. We would take strong issue with him running roughshod over a private citizen's rights to a fair hearing even to the point of directing others to lie and lying under oath himself. That was the crime sir. Not the sex.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

From what you said, OE, I concluded that you think people outside the US wouldn't be much bothered by the charges against Clinton?

I think people outside the US would be bothered a lot if their president or chancellor or prime minister, respectively, lied under oath. At the same time, I think that if such a thing happened outside the US, Americans wouldn't be bothered much.

And vice versa.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
From what you said, OE, I concluded that you think people outside the US wouldn't be much bothered by the charges against Clinton?

I think people outside the US would be bothered a lot if their president or chancellor or prime minister, respectively, lied under oath. At the same time, I think that if such a thing happened outside the US, Americans wouldn't be bothered much.

And vice versa.

Well guilty as charged that I at least don't spend much time thinking about Shroeder's morality. On the other hand, many of our European friends in this forum seem obsessed about our president's morality. I am probably in error thinking that it is a universal fixation, however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Or perhaps you are still under the impression that lying about sex was all there was to the Clinton fiasco.

That's all there was to it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Most of us thought the sex part pretty disgusting....

Let's see, woman in mid twenties hikes her skirt up in fornt of unsuspecting man in his fifties, with predictable results on his part. I wouldn't call that disgusting. I would call that a blast from the past.

Foxfyre wrote:

We would take strong issue with him running roughshod over a private citizen's rights to a fair hearing even to the point of directing others to lie and lying under oath himself.

Lying under oath about sex.

0 Replies

KW, try to stay on topic Sweetie. When you take things out of context it just slows down the discussion.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

[In this civilized country, sexual harrassment is illegal, and Clinton had been accused of doing that very thing while the Governor of the State of Arkansas, while Ms. Jones was an Arkansas State employee. He was sued while he was the President.

So what does sexual harassment have to do with Monica, who admits to initiating the affair?

Ticomaya wrote:

Several of Clinton's escapades were relevant to the Plaintiff's case...

But Monica's could not possibly be.

Ticomaya wrote:

....presumably to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton's part, certainly his sexual treatment of other women over whom he was in a position of authority...

There is no relationship whatsoever between the behavior Paual Jones accused Clinton of doing and the behavior that Clinton had with Monica.

Look. Paula Jones claims, with little substantiation, that Clinton tried to force himself on her. Monica, on the other hand, freely admits that she came in Clinton's office to deliver a pizza, then entirely of her own volition, bent over and revealed her thong underwear to him. Don't give me any jazz about "employees" or whatnot. What Clinton did with Monica in no way supports Jones' story that Clinton tried to force himself on her. Starr knew it, and almost certainly Jones' lawyers knew it.

In my opinion, Clinton probably did lie under oath about Monica. I think he figured he could dodge around and mislead, and thought he did so successfully, but he did not.

However, the reason the public, save a small percentage of Clinton-haters, does not hold it much against Clinton is that they, too, do not see why Clinton was asked questions about Monica, when Jones was alleging that Clinton tried to force himself on her.

And I won't even go into the activities of Starr and the loathesome Linda Tripp, the treacherous compatriot of Starr's misbegotten investigation. Suffice it to say that when Starr went from investigating a real estate deal, where people lost their savings, and switched over to investigating Clinton's sex life, the public rightfully knew that Starr was no longer running an investigation into truth, but rather had switched to trying to trap Clinton into lying about his cprivate, consenting, (albeit extramarital), sex life. The public was repelled by the idea, and that is why Clinton was so popular throughout the ordeal.

Ticomaya wrote:

So, yes, I certainly do defend the questions that were asked of Clinton.

I don't see how. Monica's testimony could not possibly support a charge of sexual harassment-she admits she came on to Clinton.

0 Replies

By contrast, the questions to Libby were about what Fitzgerald was hired to do.

Fitzgerald was hired to find out about how Plame's identity was revealed, he asked Libby questions directly about that. Fitzgerald did not seek to go into Libby's personal life, instead he stuck to what his mission was. If Libby screwed up, that's his problem.

0 Replies

Were you on the Grand Jury or at the depositions, KW? How do you know what was asked so specifically?

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know