OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:42 am
Laughing That's quite a spin, Joe. But this is what you actually wrote.
Joefromchicago wrote:
So, although it can be argued that Clinton's alleged perjury provided the motivation for his ultimate impeachment, it did not constitute one of the articles of impeachment.
Yes, it did.

You then asked me "how can you argue that Clinton was impeached for perjury?", and I showed you the Article of impeachment that stated unequivocally that he was indeed impeached for perjury. 228 Law Makers (and God only knows how many lawyers collectively on their staffs) thought so. Aren't those the guys who actually write the law you practice? I think it's safe to assume they could be considered experts. With all due respect Joe (which is a great deal, really), I'm inclined to believe they're at least as competent as you at defining perjury.

Btw, Monica Lewinsky's testimony was indeed admissible under Rule FRE 415, signed into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" by none other than Bill Clinton himself. Paula Jones was suing for $850,000, and got it before her appeal was complete, when 2 out of 3 judges at appeals court seemed sympathetic according to Wiki.

One judge's decision to not allow Monica's testimony (I don't recall running across that fact (factoid?) anywhere) would not constitute proof that it was not material, as the appeal was settled (for 100% of the asking price) before that could be reviewed.

The simple FACT remains, Bill Clinton did indeed commit perjury, which is why the Majority of the House, 228 Law Makers impeached him for it, just as I've maintained all along. Do me the courtesy of admitting as much, please.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:12 pm
okie wrote:
The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.


So you're stating that being the president or a senator is not a real job?
interesting.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:14 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.


So you're stating that being the president or a senator is not a real job?
interesting.


Apparently its not.
Remember,the left has often accused Bush of never having a "real job",even though he is President.

So,it must not be a real job.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:16 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.


So you're stating that being the president or a senator is not a real job?
interesting.


Apparently its not.
Remember,the left has often accused Bush of never having a "real job",even though he is President.

So,it must not be a real job.


I challenge you to show where anyone has said bush doesn't have a real job. You are confusing that with the many many people both repub and democrat who have stated that he's been a f*ck up at his job,but no one has stated he doesn't have a real job.He just sucks at it.

Nice try though hero.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:29 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing That's quite a spin, Joe. But this is what you actually wrote.
Joefromchicago wrote:
So, although it can be argued that Clinton's alleged perjury provided the motivation for his ultimate impeachment, it did not constitute one of the articles of impeachment.
Yes, it did.

As I said before, I was talking only of Clinton's deposition testimony. I'm sorry that I caused some confusion on that point.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Btw, Monica Lewinsky's testimony was indeed admissible under Rule FRE 415, signed into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" by none other than Bill Clinton himself. Paula Jones was suing for $850,000, and got it before her appeal was complete, when 2 out of 3 judges at appeals court seemed sympathetic according to Wiki.

Stick to your day job, O'BILL.

FRE 415 states:
    (a) In a civil case in which a claim for damages or other relief is predicated on a party's alleged commission of conduct constituting an offense of sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible and may be considered as provided in Rule 413 and Rule 414 of these rules.
So evidence of other sexual assaults can be used as evidence in a sexual assault case. But nobody claims that Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was anything but consensual, so evidence regarding that relationship couldn't be used under FRE 415.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
One judge's decision to not allow Monica's testimony (I don't recall running across that fact (factoid?) anywhere) would not constitute proof that it was not material, as the appeal was settled (for 100% of the asking price) before that could be reviewed.

As it was the only ruling on the evidence's admissibility, it was conclusive on the parties.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The simple FACT remains, Bill Clinton did indeed commit perjury, which is why the Majority of the House, 228 Law Makers impeached him for it, just as I've maintained all along. Do me the courtesy of admitting as much, please.

As you've maintained all along, whether or not Clinton actually committed perjury does not depend on whether he was convicted, indicted, or impeached for perjury. I'm not sure why you place such emphasis on that point, since you've spent most of this thread denying it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 12:57 pm
Wikipedia wrote:
Irony of Rule 415
Part of the trial consisted of the introduction of evidence surrounding Monica Lewinsky. Historically, evidence of prior sexual offenses was not admissible in Civil Court. However, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 415, allowed evidence "of similar acts of sexual harassment and eschewal in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation." Thus, the evidence regarding Ms. Lewinsky was admissible. The irony is that it was President Clinton who signed FRE 415 into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act."


joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The simple FACT remains, Bill Clinton did indeed commit perjury, which is why the Majority of the House, 228 Law Makers impeached him for it, just as I've maintained all along. Do me the courtesy of admitting as much, please.

As you've maintained all along, whether or not Clinton actually committed perjury does not depend on whether he was convicted, indicted, or impeached for perjury.
I've maintained all along that neither indictment nor conviction was necessary to prove perjury, Joe. I NEVER stated that they wouldn't. Interesting twist, that. Being as the indictment was handed down by an enormous collection of experts, I pay heed to their authority on the subject. You're getting sloppy in your desire to pretend you weren't caught in error.

joefromchicago wrote:
I'm not sure why you place such emphasis on that point, since you've spent most of this thread denying it.
No, I didn't, and yes, you are sure. At this juncture you're claiming authority over 228 Law Makers (and who knows how many staff lawyers) about the legal definition of perjury. 228 Joe. That was a number sufficient to impeach a President of the United States. But you're going to continue to claim greater authority on the subject? That doesn't strike you as more than a little absurd?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:33 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Irony of Rule 415
Part of the trial consisted of the introduction of evidence surrounding Monica Lewinsky. Historically, evidence of prior sexual offenses was not admissible in Civil Court. However, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 415, allowed evidence "of similar acts of sexual harassment and eschewal in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation." Thus, the evidence regarding Ms. Lewinsky was admissible. The irony is that it was President Clinton who signed FRE 415 into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act."

Read the rule. It doesn't say "sexual harassment," it says "sexual assault." And besides, Clinton didn't sexually harass Lewinsky, so even under Wikipedia's misreading of Rule 415, that evidence couldn't have been admitted.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've maintained all along that neither indictment nor conviction was necessary to prove perjury, Joe. I NEVER stated that they wouldn't. Interesting twist, that.

Not so much interesting as it is unintelligible.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Being as the indictment was handed down by an enormous collection of experts, I pay heed to their authority on the subject. You're getting sloppy in your desire to pretend you weren't caught in error.

The congress? A bunch of experts? Excuse me while I emit a loud guffaw.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
At this juncture you're claiming authority over 228 Law Makers (and who knows how many staff lawyers) about the legal definition of perjury. 228 Joe. That was a number sufficient to impeach a President of the United States. But you're going to continue to claim greater authority on the subject? That doesn't strike you as more than a little absurd?

More absurd than claiming that those 228 congressmen actually understood what they were voting for? It is to laugh.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:38 pm
GOP Objects to Jefferson Appointment
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:28 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.


So you're stating that being the president or a senator is not a real job?
interesting.

Yes, that is interesting. I happen to believe the wisdom of electing people that have actually worked in the private sector at something, and have something to offer government, besides being a "public servant." After all, government in this country was set up to serve the people, I thought, in a society that is largely a free market system. If you've never experienced this environment, I do not think you can relate to it properly, and as a result, you end up with people making laws about many things they don't have a clue about. Sorry to mention the Clintons again, but neither of them have done much of anything in terms of working at a regular job, unless you wish to consider Hillary's Rose Law Firm experience, for which we had the strange case of the missing billing records, until they, or some of them, mysteriously turned up again.

So, being a senator is not really a "real job" in my opinion. It is a job, but not one that is based on the normal constraints that govern "real jobs" in the real world.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:32 pm


There you have it, the new party of ethics. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Maybe Jefferson can take a few bribes to influence his decisions concerning Homeland Security?

Should we, as Asherman suggests, simply overlook this man's human weaknesses?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:43 pm
okie wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
The "Clinton" argument, obviously. Defenders vs those of us that wish they would just go home and get a real job, for a change.


So you're stating that being the president or a senator is not a real job?
interesting.

Yes, that is interesting. I happen to believe the wisdom of electing people that have actually worked in the private sector at something, and have something to offer government, besides being a "public servant." After all, government in this country was set up to serve the people, I thought, in a society that is largely a free market system. If you've never experienced this environment, I do not think you can relate to it properly, and as a result, you end up with people making laws about many things they don't have a clue about. Sorry to mention the Clintons again, but neither of them have done much of anything in terms of working at a regular job, unless you wish to consider Hillary's Rose Law Firm experience, for which we had the strange case of the missing billing records, until they, or some of them, mysteriously turned up again.

So, being a senator is not really a "real job" in my opinion. It is a job, but not one that is based on the normal constraints that govern "real jobs" in the real world.

opinion noted and an interesting perspective I must admit.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 02:51 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've maintained all along that neither indictment nor conviction was necessary to prove perjury, Joe. I NEVER stated that they wouldn't. Interesting twist, that.
Not so much interesting as it is unintelligible.
Rolling Eyes Nonsense. A man can be a murderer without being convicted of murder. However; a conviction of murder is most certainly substantial evidence that the man is indeed a murderer. This is not at all unclear to a layman, Joe.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Being as the indictment was handed down by an enormous collection of experts, I pay heed to their authority on the subject. You're getting sloppy in your desire to pretend you weren't caught in error.

The congress? A bunch of experts? Excuse me while I emit a loud guffaw.
Interesting rhetorical device, that. But not very convincing considering they make the law you practice and roughly 40% of the Law Makers in the 105th Congress shared your profession before becoming members of the United States House of Representatives and who knows how many more lawyers they have on staff.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
At this juncture you're claiming authority over 228 Law Makers (and who knows how many staff lawyers) about the legal definition of perjury. 228 Joe. That was a number sufficient to impeach a President of the United States. But you're going to continue to claim greater authority on the subject? That doesn't strike you as more than a little absurd?

More absurd than claiming that those 228 congressmen actually understood what they were voting for? It is to laugh.
That well is dry, Joe. 40% of the House shared your profession and I'd wager most were pretty damned successful too... and they ARE the legislators.

Would you like to wager on whether or not most of the lawyers in the House of the 105th Voted for impeachment... for perjury? :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:29 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've maintained all along that neither indictment nor conviction was necessary to prove perjury, Joe. I NEVER stated that they wouldn't. Interesting twist, that.
Not so much interesting as it is unintelligible.
Rolling Eyes Nonsense. A man can be a murderer without being convicted of murder. However; a conviction of murder is most certainly substantial evidence that the man is indeed a murderer. This is not at all unclear to a layman, Joe.

Well, when you put it that way, it's not unclear to me either. I just didn't understand your previous remarks. Maybe you left out a word or two.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Interesting rhetorical device, that. But not very convincing considering they make the law you practice and roughly 40% of the Law Makers in the 105th Congress shared your profession before becoming members of the United States House of Representatives and who knows how many more lawyers they have on staff.
....
That well is dry, Joe. 40% of the House shared your profession and I'd wager most were pretty damned successful too... and they ARE the legislators.

Would you like to wager on whether or not most of the lawyers in the House of the 105th Voted for impeachment... for perjury? :wink:

Argumentum ad verecundiam.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:35 pm
I'm not suggesting that the public overlook illegal, or dishonorable behavior.

My point is that we should not expect politicians to be without blemish, and that mud-slinging tactics are ultimately destructive to the whole process. Both Parties are equally vulnerable to charges that some of their members are corrupt, act illegally, or without honor. Individuals who violate the law, should be prosecuted in the courts, but neither Party is inherently "evil" or dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution. It is a case of the pot calling the Kettle black.

Those serving on the Intelligence Committees should undergo the same background investigation required of members of the Intelligence community. Any impropriety or evidence that a potential member of Intelligence Committees might pose even a remote security risk should be cause for keeping that person off the Committee. Oversight of members serving on those committees should be careful and constant so long as they have access to highly classified matters. I believe that Mr. Jefferson poses an unacceptable security risk and should not be given access to classified information.

Understanding and making allowance for human weaknesses is one thing, but to bestow trust upon a person after they have demonstrated betrayal is another. Mr. Jefferson may be a fine public servant whose efforts to represent his constituency are both effective and efficient. He doesn't need to be driven from office, but it will be along time before he again deserves a position of trust within the Congress. The same should be said about those conservative Republicans who sleep with the help, line their pockets as a benefit of position, or who break the laws.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:41 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Well, when you put it that way, it's not unclear to me either. I just didn't understand your previous remarks. Maybe you left out a word or two.
I could have been clearer. My apologies.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Interesting rhetorical device, that. But not very convincing considering they make the law you practice and roughly 40% of the Law Makers in the 105th Congress shared your profession before becoming members of the United States House of Representatives and who knows how many more lawyers they have on staff.
....
That well is dry, Joe. 40% of the House shared your profession and I'd wager most were pretty damned successful too... and they ARE the legislators.

Would you like to wager on whether or not most of the lawyers in the House of the 105th Voted for impeachment... for perjury? :wink:

Argumentum ad verecundiam.
While I enjoyed the link(s), and would enjoy any more you'd like to share with me, I don't think that gets you off the hook. For one thing; the author of Article I (Perjury) is himself an expert, opining on precisely his area of expertise. A lone expert I see can indeed be misused in Argumentum ad verecundiam... but the author does not appear to meet that criteria.
a) He is well within his field of expertise to define Perjury.
b) 228 Law makers confirmed his view, with over 100 experts (attorney like yourself) among them. That's an awful lot of experts to call bogus, IMO. Prior to this; I've cited NY Times, Wikipedia and the online legal dictionary as well as a host of supposedly Fact-checked news stories. All in concurrence with the expert author of the allegation I cited, peer reviewed by a massive panel of like-qualified experts, all having sworn an oath to protect the constitution.

Quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."


I have to assume that every one of these Lawyer-Litigators would exceed the requirements to be considered an Expert, in the field of Law? Hence, their opinion that the original expert who prepared the document was in fact correct constitutes a resounding chorus of Experts. Again, we are talking about the very people who create the law, have sworn do defend the law, interpreting the law. I really don't see how you can accuse them ALL of being bogus. That's quite a stretch.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:56 pm
Unacceptable risk, Asherman? Shouldn't lose his job? We are talking about the Freezer-full-of-Cash Jefferson aren't we? Has she lost her damned mind and how can this even be a partisan issue? Does anyone here know any innocent people with a freezer full of cash? Anyone? Could it be our standards are getting just a tad low?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Unacceptable risk, Asherman? Shouldn't lose his job? We are talking about the Freezer-full-of-Cash Jefferson aren't we? Has she lost her damned mind and how can this even be a partisan issue? Does anyone here know any innocent people with a freezer full of cash? Anyone? Could it be our standards are getting just a tad low?


Wipe that silly smirk off your face, Bill and put your teeth back in. One who deals with the lives of millions of people in the cavalier fashion you do should not be addressing anyone's standard of morality.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:10 pm
I seem to have developed a constant reminder that the world will not soon run out of idiots.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:29 pm
Asherman wrote:
I'm not suggesting that the public overlook illegal, or dishonorable behavior.

My point is that we should not expect politicians to be without blemish, and that mud-slinging tactics are ultimately destructive to the whole process. Both Parties are equally vulnerable to charges that some of their members are corrupt, act illegally, or without honor. Individuals who violate the law, should be prosecuted in the courts, but neither Party is inherently "evil" or dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution. It is a case of the pot calling the Kettle black.

I understand your point, Asherman, and I agree about 80%. I would not deny there is corruption in both major parties as there is throughout society, and actually I believe politicians pretty much mirror society. However, we are no longer dealing with discreet mistress affairs by the likes of FDR or possibly Ike, or something like that. We are dealing with very serious corruption.

Also, I would like to point something out that I believe is creeping into the philosophy of the Democrat Party especially. I have heard more than one Democrat refer to what is labeled as "public morality," which has a translation of how much can I we tax everyone to help the poor. This is at the expense of personal morality, which is no longer considered to be that important among many of that political philosophy. I think this is a very dangerous mindset, because under that thinking, Mao Tse Tung may be considered to be a very, very moral man. Huge problem, communism and socialism is not what our country is about.

In contrast, I believe Republicans still believe in personal morality as being very important. That is part of the mindset of conservative people. Many liberals are moral people, but what party defended Bill Clinton regardless of the scandal, and there were literally dozens of them. When Republicans get in trouble, their own party tends to abandon them, and I think we can bring up several examples if you need them. Do not misunderstand. I think this is stereotypical, not true in every case, but the Democrats do not emphasize personal morality as much as Republicans. There are still crooks on both sides of the aisle, but I see the Democrats circling the wagons around any of their own that may be accused of personal moral problems and corruption.

Quote:
Those serving on the Intelligence Committees should undergo the same background investigation required of members of the Intelligence community. Any impropriety or evidence that a potential member of Intelligence Committees might pose even a remote security risk should be cause for keeping that person off the Committee. Oversight of members serving on those committees should be careful and constant so long as they have access to highly classified matters. I believe that Mr. Jefferson poses an unacceptable security risk and should not be given access to classified information.

Understanding and making allowance for human weaknesses is one thing, but to bestow trust upon a person after they have demonstrated betrayal is another. Mr. Jefferson may be a fine public servant whose efforts to represent his constituency are both effective and efficient. He doesn't need to be driven from office, but it will be along time before he again deserves a position of trust within the Congress. The same should be said about those conservative Republicans who sleep with the help, line their pockets as a benefit of position, or who break the laws.

If Jefferson is guilty of bribes, he is not a fine public servant, he is a criminal, and should be sent to jail. If he was a Republican, I would be willing to bet quite a bit that he would no longer be in office, let alone be appointed to anything.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:07 pm
I have no opinion as to Mr. Jefferson's ability to represent his constituents, nor is it clear that he has violated the law. If he has, then prosecute him and let the jury decide. His guilt or innocence has nothing to do with whether one political party is "dirtier" than the other. Certain elements of our community have been slinging the most outrageous rumors and accusations of malfeasance against this Administration for years. In some people's eyes it is almost a crime to be a Republican, or a Conservative. Personal attacks and smear tactics against GOP politicians seems to have become the "weapon of choice" for far too many Democrats. There is a great temptation to follow their infamous example by unduly focusing on the failures of Democratic figures. In my view that is a mistake, and a tactic we should avoid. Far better. we should take the high road and keep the focus on who will best serve the interests of the Constitution and the country as a whole.

This nation faces once again important policy considerations that will impact our country and the world for decades into the future. We elect representatives not to do our bidding, but to use their skill and best judgment on our behalf. Individual character is an important aspect of why we choose one individual over another. However, to blacken the reputation of others solely for partisan, or personal gain, is despicable.

If the Democratic Left wants to continue its vile tactics, it will come home to roost someday.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:42:44