BernardR wrote:I did indeed make an error. I said President Bush was elected on Jan. 19th 2001. He was not elected on that day but in the previous November but he did not take office until Jan.19th. My error.
However, I throw myself on the mercy of the court. The reason that Jan.19th sticks in my mind so clearly is that the month before that was the month in which President Clinton took his plea bargain and also made his scandelous pardons of some of the sleaziest criminals in our country's jails.
I learned something in November 2000. Even if a President is elected in November, the scumbag in office until Jan. 19th has a good deal of time to cause mischief.
Another error on your part. Bush did NOT take office on Jan 19th which I pointed out EARLIER in response to McG who tried to think for you. Bush took office on Jan 20th, 2001, at least that is the day listed on the White House website that he took the oath of office and gave his speech
You are full of factual errors Bernard. Clinton and Ray made the bargain on Jan 19th, 2001. Finally the correct date but you claim the deal happened a month earlier. You can't seem to get anything right here Bernard.
McGentrix wrote:
I can't help you with your comprehension skills. You choose to attack and make stupid assed remarks ignoring the point of what BernardR wrote. It's a juvenile effort on your part at best. I understood what he was saying, but then, I am much smarter than you as shown by your inability to grasp his point.
Ah yes of course. We shouldn't pay any attention to the factual errors used to reach a conclusion if one agrees with the conclusion. Nice try there McG but it fails miserably. When the facts are incorrect the conclusion doesn't really matter. Until the facts are corrected the argument is a house of cards.
Yeah. you are MUCH smarter than me because you think Bush took office on Jan 19th..
The people in the White House must be dumb for saying Bush took office on the 20th.
I do admit a second error. Bush did take office on the twentieth instead of the nineteenth. I wonder if Parados can find an error in the material below. He is very perceptive. He might very well do so. I invite him to find an error in the material below. He won't since it is a factual report by the Washington Post detailing the shameful admission of a President of the United States that he gave false testimony under oath.
Find an error in this, Mr.Parados------------
Top News
Clinton Accused
What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds Lewinsky Case Report Released
Prosecutors Could Have Indicted Clinton, Ray Says
By Neely Tucker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 7, 2002; Page A01
Independent counsel Robert W. Ray had enough information to indict former president Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, but declined after Clinton admitted that he had not told the truth, according to the final report on the events that led to Clinton's impeachment.
The 237-page report into the clandestine affair between the president and the former White House intern assesses the impact that the evidence against Clinton would have had in a court of law. While the outcome is well known, the report reveals Ray's conclusions and strategy, and is designed to be the final legal word on the matter.
_____Full Text_____
Final Report of the Independent Council
"The Independent Counsel concluded that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute and that such evidence would 'probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction,' " Ray wrote.
Specifically, he wrote, prosecutors could have proven that Clinton obstructed justice by testifying falsely under oath that Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with him was "absolutely true," that he could not recall ever being alone with Lewinsky and that he had not had sexual relations with her.
But that did not mean criminal prosecution was warranted after Clinton left office, he concluded, because Clinton had been punished in other ways. As part of that deliberation, Ray had to weigh the sympathies prosecutors expected a District jury to have for a Democratic ex-president.
Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998; agreed to pay $850,000 to settle the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit; and was found in contempt of court, fined $25,000 and made to pay $90,000 in attorneys fees for giving what U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said were "false, misleading and evasive answers" in his Jones case deposition.
In addition, Clinton agreed to acknowledge as part of an agreement with Ray on his last day in office that he had given false answers under oath. His license to practice law was suspended for five years.
That was penalty enough, Ray decided.
"The Independent Counsel concluded that impeachment, the contempt citation issued by Judge Wright . . . and President Clinton's public statement acknowledging the falsity of his testimony adequately upheld federal law enforcement interests in promoting truthfulness and honesty before judicial tribunals by a high government official in a position of trust."
Ray defended the report's findings yesterday and said it spoke for itself. He declined further comment.
But release of the report drew sharp criticism from several quarters, with Clinton partisans suggesting it was either a recitation of well-worn information, or that Ray was wrong to now suggest he could have convicted the president of a crime.
"This report is just what was out there a year ago. There's nothing new." said David E. Kendall, Clinton's attorney.
"For Mr. Ray to now suggest that he could have brought charges is a little bit of a low blow after the matter has been put away," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and an ardent Clinton supporter. "It's highly unethical, it's unfair to the person investigated."
Conyers and the conservative group Judicial Watch also have complained that Ray, while completing the report, has been exploring a run for the Senate from New Jersey. That might be a violation of the canons of the Independent Counsel Act, his critics charge.
Ray has vigorously denied that he has done anything improper, noting in a March 1 letter to Conyers that he is not a candidate for any partisan political office.
In a report that seemed designed to address the historical record rather than provide new information, Ray's findings show that even while Clinton was denying the affair under oath, prosecutors had physical evidence and testimony that the pair engaged in sexual relations -- laying the groundwork for charges of perjury and making false statements.
The most direct testimony came from Lewinsky, who provided times, dates and details of their encounters. Lewinsky also gave prosecutors their strongest physical evidence -- a stained dress she wore during an encounter with Clinton. The stains contained his DNA.
Ray also asserted that his office could convict Clinton of obstruction of justice for summoning White House secretary Betty Currie to his office on a Sunday in an effort to persuade her to testify that the president had never been alone with Lewinsky.
In a footnote, however, Ray indicated that it is an open question whether a grand jury would have indicted Clinton.
Several legal experts said yesterday that Ray's decision not to prosecute the case was within the standards of prosecutorial discretion.
"It is extraordinarily common for prosecutors not to pursue a case, notwithstanding that they feel they could convict," said Bill Stuntz, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It comes down to their personal discretion about what serves the ends of justice."
The Lewinsky scandal began in the first days of 1998, during the investigation of a sexual harassment case against Clinton. Jones, a former state worker in Arkansas, alleged that Clinton once asked her to perform a sexual act.
On Jan. 12, Linda R. Tripp, Lewinsky's confidant, gave Kenneth W. Starr, Ray's predecessor as independent counsel, tapes of telephone conversations she had secretly made in which the then-24-year-old intern spoke of an affair with Clinton. The next day, at Starr's request, the FBI gave Tripp a concealed recording device. The secret microphone recorded the conversation between Lewinsky and Tripp when the pair met at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton. Starr used Tripp's tapes as the basis for his investigation.
Ray's report also concluded that none of the complaintslodged by the White House and Clinton's defenders of professional misconduct by Starr's legal team had merit. Most were rejected immediately by the Justice Department.
Ray also said no one in the independent counsel's office was found to have leaked grand jury information to the news media -- a charge aggressively pursued by Clinton's lawyers. He noted that in March 2001, Clinton and former aides Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal had agreed to the dismissal of all court proceedings involving alleged grand jury leaks.
In comments with the report, Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, said the dismissal was agreed to not because there was no illegal leaking but because "it was time to move on."
Ray's report was the penultimate step in the investigations into the financial and personal affairs of Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The investigations will conclude when Ray releases his final report into the Clintons' Whitewater dealings within weeks."
Lovely red herring Bernard...
It has absolutely nothing to do with Tony Snow.
Red Herring? Ah, but you took a big bite out of the Herring, Mr. Parados.
See your response to McGentrix on May 8th, 5:30.
I am of the opinion that my documented commentary proving that Ted Kennedy was indeed a cheater who was expelled from Harvard and that my thorough documentation of the "Manslaughter" controversy with regard to Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick is something you wish to studiously avoid.
I don't blame you, sir!!!
BernardR wrote:Red Herring? Ah, but you took a big bite out of the Herring, Mr. Parados.
See your response to McGentrix on May 8th, 5:30.
I am of the opinion that my documented commentary proving that Ted Kennedy was indeed a cheater who was expelled from Harvard and that my thorough documentation of the "Manslaughter" controversy with regard to Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick is something you wish to studiously avoid.
I don't blame you, sir!!!
Of course you do realize that Bush has a clear plan to lead Iraq to democracy and freedom from terrorism. I don't know why you would bother to try to hide that fact by continually bringing up Clinton as a red herring.
I am aware of the charge of "Red Herring" It is usually used by people who are so frightened of the evidence they encounter( since they can't answer the evidence) that they hide behind the Red Herring by placing a Red Herring. If you were convinced that a Red Herring was being used, you should not have responded to my post.
You did and then were flummoxed by the evidence.
Your evidence? ROFLMBO
Your evidence has NOTHING in it to support the statement that Clinton did a deal in Dec. In fact your "evidence" is from March. You preface it with "Find an error in this."
It is a HUGE RED HERRING. It supports NOTHING that you said previously that I disputed. It has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread. The only purpose was to run away from your third factual error without admitting you were wrong.
Clinton cut a deal. I said that. I also said the DAY he did it which is different from the time period you claimed. Posting a long treatise about Ray's report doesn't support anything you said that that I disputed. It is a red herring. You refuse to deal with the fact that you got the date wrong.
I am aware of the charge of "Red Herring" It is usually used by people who are so frightened of the evidence they encounter( since they can't answer the evidence) that they hide behind the Red Herring by placing a Red Herring. If you were convinced that a Red Herring was being used, you should not have responded to my post.
You did and then were flummoxed by the evidence.
Read again:
Top News
Clinton Accused
What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds Lewinsky Case Report Released
Prosecutors Could Have Indicted Clinton, Ray Says
By Neely Tucker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 7, 2002; Page A01
Independent counsel Robert W. Ray had enough information to indict former president Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, but declined after Clinton admitted that he had not told the truth, according to the final report on the events that led to Clinton's impeachment.
The 237-page report into the clandestine affair between the president and the former White House intern assesses the impact that the evidence against Clinton would have had in a court of law. While the outcome is well known, the report reveals Ray's conclusions and strategy, and is designed to be the final legal word on the matter.
_____Full Text_____
Final Report of the Independent Council
"The Independent Counsel concluded that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute and that such evidence would 'probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction,' " Ray wrote.
Specifically, he wrote, prosecutors could have proven that Clinton obstructed justice by testifying falsely under oath that Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with him was "absolutely true," that he could not recall ever being alone with Lewinsky and that he had not had sexual relations with her.
But that did not mean criminal prosecution was warranted after Clinton left office, he concluded, because Clinton had been punished in other ways. As part of that deliberation, Ray had to weigh the sympathies prosecutors expected a District jury to have for a Democratic ex-president.
Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998; agreed to pay $850,000 to settle the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit; and was found in contempt of court, fined $25,000 and made to pay $90,000 in attorneys fees for giving what U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said were "false, misleading and evasive answers" in his Jones case deposition.
In addition, Clinton agreed to acknowledge as part of an agreement with Ray on his last day in office that he had given false answers under oath. His license to practice law was suspended for five years.
That was penalty enough, Ray decided.
"The Independent Counsel concluded that impeachment, the contempt citation issued by Judge Wright . . . and President Clinton's public statement acknowledging the falsity of his testimony adequately upheld federal law enforcement interests in promoting truthfulness and honesty before judicial tribunals by a high government official in a position of trust."
Ray defended the report's findings yesterday and said it spoke for itself. He declined further comment.
But release of the report drew sharp criticism from several quarters, with Clinton partisans suggesting it was either a recitation of well-worn information, or that Ray was wrong to now suggest he could have convicted the president of a crime.
"This report is just what was out there a year ago. There's nothing new." said David E. Kendall, Clinton's attorney.
"For Mr. Ray to now suggest that he could have brought charges is a little bit of a low blow after the matter has been put away," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and an ardent Clinton supporter. "It's highly unethical, it's unfair to the person investigated."
Conyers and the conservative group Judicial Watch also have complained that Ray, while completing the report, has been exploring a run for the Senate from New Jersey. That might be a violation of the canons of the Independent Counsel Act, his critics charge.
Ray has vigorously denied that he has done anything improper, noting in a March 1 letter to Conyers that he is not a candidate for any partisan political office.
In a report that seemed designed to address the historical record rather than provide new information, Ray's findings show that even while Clinton was denying the affair under oath, prosecutors had physical evidence and testimony that the pair engaged in sexual relations -- laying the groundwork for charges of perjury and making false statements.
The most direct testimony came from Lewinsky, who provided times, dates and details of their encounters. Lewinsky also gave prosecutors their strongest physical evidence -- a stained dress she wore during an encounter with Clinton. The stains contained his DNA.
Ray also asserted that his office could convict Clinton of obstruction of justice for summoning White House secretary Betty Currie to his office on a Sunday in an effort to persuade her to testify that the president had never been alone with Lewinsky.
In a footnote, however, Ray indicated that it is an open question whether a grand jury would have indicted Clinton.
Several legal experts said yesterday that Ray's decision not to prosecute the case was within the standards of prosecutorial discretion.
"It is extraordinarily common for prosecutors not to pursue a case, notwithstanding that they feel they could convict," said Bill Stuntz, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It comes down to their personal discretion about what serves the ends of justice."
The Lewinsky scandal began in the first days of 1998, during the investigation of a sexual harassment case against Clinton. Jones, a former state worker in Arkansas, alleged that Clinton once asked her to perform a sexual act.
On Jan. 12, Linda R. Tripp, Lewinsky's confidant, gave Kenneth W. Starr, Ray's predecessor as independent counsel, tapes of telephone conversations she had secretly made in which the then-24-year-old intern spoke of an affair with Clinton. The next day, at Starr's request, the FBI gave Tripp a concealed recording device. The secret microphone recorded the conversation between Lewinsky and Tripp when the pair met at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton. Starr used Tripp's tapes as the basis for his investigation.
Ray's report also concluded that none of the complaintslodged by the White House and Clinton's defenders of professional misconduct by Starr's legal team had merit. Most were rejected immediately by the Justice Department.
Ray also said no one in the independent counsel's office was found to have leaked grand jury information to the news media -- a charge aggressively pursued by Clinton's lawyers. He noted that in March 2001, Clinton and former aides Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal had agreed to the dismissal of all court proceedings involving alleged grand jury leaks.
In comments with the report, Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, said the dismissal was agreed to not because there was no illegal leaking but because "it was time to move on."
Ray's report was the penultimate step in the investigations into the financial and personal affairs of Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The investigations will conclude when Ray releases his final report into the Clintons' Whitewater dealings within weeks."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what it has to do with Tony Snow. Even before the man is into his job, he is denigrated by the left for political purposes but NOTHING that Tony Snow handles for the rest of GW Bush's term will be as sleazy and demeaning as the explanation that Clinton's people did not give when he placed a cigar in Monica Lewinsky's pudenda!
well.....
La de red herring da...
yes....consensual sex is so much sleazier than killing thousands of people based on lies.
You feeding trolls here, parados?
Mr. Dlowan: I am very much afraid that you haven't kept up on your legal reading.
President Clinton was not impeached because of consensual sex. President Clinton was impeached because of two counts of "Obstruction of Justice". If you are not sure of what that means, I will be happy to explain it to you.
And your throw-away comment concerning "killing thousands of people based on lies" is obviously an ignorant one which is oblivious of the fact that George W. Bush may have followed the advice given to him by his predecessor- the esteemed William Jefferson Clinton, who, on December 18th, when he ordered that Baghdad be bombed by missles( without Congressional approval, it must be added, unlike the Congressional Approval obtained by President Bush on Oct. 10th and 11th from a bipartisan overwhelming vote in the Congress which gave him the authority to invade Iraq".
The advice given by Clinton was( Dec, 1998)
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD>"
My assertions are based on evidence. Yours, Mr.Dlowan, appear to be based on nothing but your opinion. You are entitled to it, of course, but it is shown to be badly lacking by the facts above.
Getting back to Snow
Quote:It was the pinnacle of a boffo debut by Snow. Reporters leaving the 40-minute session would discover that, like his predecessors, Snow had imparted no useful information to them. But he had done it in a far more entertaining manner. Of the National Security Agency's telephone espionage program, he risked some loaded language: "I don't want to hug the tar baby." Of future immigration patterns, he said: "Human beings are cussedly unpredictable."
source
Apparently from what I have been reading "tar baby" is from a story about a boy trying to catch a rabbit and he used a toy baby with tar. But the term has also been used as a racial slur and in the past people have gotten fired for using it.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/
He seems off to a fine start.
But the question is, revel, should Tony Snow be replaced?
I think you may be just a bit premature with your comments.
I will follow Tony Snow and wait for the consensus opinion of the press which he serves with his reports. I will give him at least a month or two.
Or are you in favor of the Islamo-Fascist approach? Cut off his head two days after capture!!!!
Well, that is a completely off the wall post, Bernard.
In what post have I said he should be replaced? Whats with all the "off with the head" talk?
revel wrote:Getting back to Snow
Quote:It was the pinnacle of a boffo debut by Snow. Reporters leaving the 40-minute session would discover that, like his predecessors, Snow had imparted no useful information to them. But he had done it in a far more entertaining manner. Of the National Security Agency's telephone espionage program, he risked some loaded language: "I don't want to hug the tar baby." Of future immigration patterns, he said: "Human beings are cussedly unpredictable."
source
Apparently from what I have been reading "tar baby" is from a story about a boy trying to catch a rabbit and he used a toy baby with tar. But the term has also been used as a racial slur and in the past people have gotten fired for using it.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/
He seems off to a fine start.
You're still going on about the tar baby comment? Get a clue.
Let's take a look at the context for just a moment.
Quote:CBS REPORTER: Why not declassify [the NSA's call records database]? I mean, the President did talk about the surveillance program a day after the New York Times broke that story. This would seem to affect far more people and it did sound like the President was confirming that story today when he was answering questions.
SNOW: If you go back and look through what he said, there was a reference of foreign to domestic calls. I am not going to stand up here and presume to declassify any kind of program. That is a decision the President has to make. I can't confirm or deny it. The President was not confirming or denying. Again, I would take you back to the USA Today story to give you a little context. Look at the poll that appeared the following day [...] something like 65% of the public was not troubled by it. Having said that, I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program... the alleged program, the existence of which I can neither confirm or deny.
"I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program..."
seems to be the offending line to those looking for any excuse to crucify Snow or anyone else associated with the Bush administration. Let's replace that with a different epithet and you tell me if it makes any sense.
"I don't want to hug the nigger of trying to comment on the program..."
Nope, no sense at all. Let's try a differnet one.
"I don't want to hug the black man of trying to comment on the program..."
Nope.
A good review of this comment can be found
here.
Try reading it and let go of the stupidity that has you bogged down revel.
A magnificent retort--McGentrix--now,perhaps, revel will be able to understand the meaning of my post.
Actually I posted that about the tar baby incident on May 17 and it hung there until the 18th.
Bernard was making some kind of comment about me suggesting Snow be replaced when i haven't made any such comment. The whole Snow incident wasn't even discussed in the exchange. I have moved on from the subject as I haven't made any more comments even on the other thread. (However, I still stand by my previous statements in regards to the Snow incident.)
