Most despised US politician [current] ? [Archive]

dougie_monty

08-23-1999, 02:57 PM

Although Dan Quayle seems not to have a chance this time, I'd include him here. I too am from Indianapolis, and according to some of my relatives there, Quayle used the news media, in central Indiana, owned by his grandfather's family, to defeat the popular senator Birch Bayh in the 1980 U. S. Senatorial election in Indiana. I don't fret much about him being in the National Guard--anyone old enough to remember the late 60s knows the Guard wasn't sitting on their hands then. (there were riots in many U. S. cities in the late 60s, motivated by reactions to racism, by Vietnam, or any number of other things; there were widespread riots after the assassination of Martin Luther Kintg in 1968.) So unless Quayle got a "desk job" in the Guard, I'd guess he kept busy.
His use of the mews media his relatives owned to win an election, however, is inexcusable.

gene

08-23-1999, 03:22 PM

My vote is for Bill Clinton-hands down!
People tolerate him now , because the economy is good, but just wait til the downturn....then every sordid detail of his rotten life will come out.
I also understand he has a ton of lawsuits against him waiting for when he becomes a private citizen...keep those contributions (to his legal defense fund) coming!

cmkeller

08-23-1999, 03:30 PM

pluto, I assumed the question was who is the most despised in the eyes of the American public at large. For the record, I think Bill Clinton is a horrible person, a genuine felon, and undeserving of his current office.

Chaim Mattis Keller

UncleBeer

08-23-1999, 04:35 PM

I have a local politician I would like to nominate for most despicable. The Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, Carty Finkbeiner.

We were planning an airport expansion here and Toledoans were concerned about the increased noise. This jackass actually said we ought to move deaf people near the airport. They wouldn't be affected nearly as much. I believe this statement also made the national news at one time.

But wait, the story gets better. For this faux pas, he was included in a book about the 100 dumbest ideas floated by politicians. It was reported in The Toledo Blade and the writer asked him how he felt about inclusion in the book. Carty replied, (and this is a direct quote from the newspaper) "I don't have time for that foolishness." The article went on to say that Carty declined to answer any other questions as he was on his way to an awards dinner for, get this, "The Distinguished Clown Association."

Fortunately, we have a mayoral term limit here in Toledo. This guy's out in 2000.

------------------
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
- Ambrose Bierce

pluto

08-24-1999, 12:14 AM

I'd say the list of nominees here says a lot about the political affiliations of the average poster.

I can't believe that no one has nominated our current Adulterer-in-Chief -- if not for his "private" behavior then for his willingness to sacrifice his family, friends, enemies, associates, the general public, Sudanese aspirin factories and the nation of Yugoslavia to try to maintain his popularity.

Having exposed my political affiliations I would like to balance things a little by also offering George Nethercutt (R-Washington) as a contender. He defeated then Speaker of the House Tom Foley by supporting term limits, but now that his limit has arrived he's saying exactly the same things Foley did about experience counting and I can serve you better now, etc.

------------------
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"

Jahender

08-24-1999, 12:19 AM

Al Gore, he cries in front of millions saying that his sister got cancer from cigs, but fails to mention the the Gore family money originally came from tobacco farming. He is, as Imus puts it, a war criminal.

------------------
The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.
George Bernard Shaw

dougie_monty

08-25-1999, 06:05 PM

Can Democrats match the record of these Republican presidents?
Warren G. Harding--Nan Britton; Teapot Dome; Harry Daugherty
Calvin Coolidge--"The business of America is business." He stood by, allowed a laissez-fair attitude toward the private sector; what with stock manipulation and margin buying, for example, the U. S. economy went straight down the toilet.
Dwight D. Eisenhower--"proved we don't need a president," said Mort Sahl.
Richard M. Nixon--"Well, I am not a crook!"
Gerald Ford--"I beg your pardon." "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe..."(DUHH!!)
Ronald Reagan--Racism, cutbacks, Ollie North; "the bombing begins in five minutes." After the SLA kidnapped Patty Hearst and demanded as ransom free food for the needy, Ronnie said we should "have an epidemic of botulism."
George Bush--"Read my lips--no new taxes!" (Har-dee-har-har!!)

08-26-1999, 02:13 PM

Doug, I hate to divest you of your illusions, but my understanding of what J. Danforth was doing as his part of the National Guard effort was primarily running a Ditto machine for a public relations unit; when he wasn't doing that, he was swaggering around the local bars in his uniform letting everyone know how rich he was.

Interesting to also note that The Shrub also spent his 'Vietnam' years flying around for the National Guard (obviously, only a coincidence that his father was a Congressman at the time).

Al Gore, meanwhile, was right in the thick of it.

dougie_monty

08-26-1999, 05:42 PM

Thanks just the same, DIF. I had been willing to give Quayle his due but now I see there's no due to give him.
Incidentally, the bit from a Straight Dope book about Quayle thinking Latin Americans spoke Latin ("It was a Jay Leno joke!" said one reader) goes back at least to the Christmas season of 1983. I know. I made an audio recording off Bob Hope's Christmas special that year; he attributed the goof to Ronald Reagan. I still have the recording.

Big Iron

08-27-1999, 02:53 AM

[[My vote is for Bill Clinton-hands down! Gene

Even though he enjoys remarkable approval and was elected twice .. whaddaya know?

[[People tolerate him now , because the economy is good, but just wait til the downturn]]

How long you gonna wait? His term expires in less than 17 months.

[[....then every sordid detail of his rotten life will come out.]]

Yeah, there hasn't been any investigation of his private life so far.

[[I also understand he has a ton of lawsuits against him waiting for when he becomes a private citizen]]

You "understand" that, huh? Even though the Supreme Court ruled that being President did not affect his ability tobe sued? And that thus makes it likely that the statute of limitations on these (surely imagined) malfeasances has been running for a long time? Right ...

[[For the record, I think Bill Clinton is a horrible person, a genuine felon, and undeserving of his current office.]] cmkeller

What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?

cmkeller

08-27-1999, 09:57 AM

Big Iron:

What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?

Sorry, he'll get no "entrapment" sympathy from me; the grand jury was not set up to get him to lie, it was set up to get him to tell the truth. If that happened to reveal a previous lie; well, no one asked him to lie in the first place. If he really didn't sexually harass Paula Jones (and quite frankly, I was pretty skeptical that her case could hold water as a sexual harassment case to begin with, but then again, I'm no lawyer), then a jury would have rules that way based on proper information. He had no "right" to give that jury false information.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Big Iron

08-28-1999, 12:01 AM

{{[[What genuine felonies do you suggest there is evidence he committed? Weaseling in front of a grand jury set up to try to get him to lie? Anything else?]]

Sorry, he'll get no "entrapment" sympathy from me; the grand jury was not set up to get him to lie, it was set up to get him to tell the truth. }} cmkeller

No -- it was set up to try to catch him in a lie, and for no other purpose. To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense.

Got anything else for which you would characterize him as a genuine felon?

[[ If that happened to reveal a previous lie; well, no one asked him to lie in the first place. ]]

True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case.

[[ He had no "right" to give that jury false information.]]

You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway.

1420Vel.GN

08-28-1999, 10:23 AM

Bill is a liar!!! He is more concerned with his *legacy* than doing the right thing for the Country. If Joe Citizen (or any boss, manager, officer in the military) had done what he did, there would have been major trouble for them. I did not follow the blowjob flap closely - but I remember something about him saying under oath that he was never alone with Monica. Anybody that has ever "played" like that damn well knows if they were alone or not.

Since the original post said other than obvious, I'll include:
ALL the bleeding heart paternalist legislators need to be killed - or something.
But don't you try it, only B. Clinton can get away with that kind of behavior.

dougie_monty

08-28-1999, 04:22 PM

Do you consider Clinton the lesser of two evils (or the least of three: Clinton-Bush-Perot or Clinton-Dole-Perot)?

Big Iron

08-29-1999, 01:58 AM

[[Bill is a liar!!! ]]

Well that certainly sets him apart from the former and would-be Presidents of the Nation.

[[He is more concerned with his *legacy* than doing the right thing for the Country.]]

Uh huh -- even though that legacy largely involves how well he did by the country.

[[ If Joe Citizen (or any boss, manager, officer in the military) had done what he did, there would have been major trouble for them. ]]

In fact, that is highly unlikely, putting aside the fact that he did have a lot of trouble as a result.

[[I did not follow the blowjob flap closely]]

Ahh ... even though that was the only thing on which Starr could find anything for which to attempt to prosecute him.

[[ - but I remember something about him saying under oath that he was never alone with Monica. Anybody that has ever "played" like that damn well knows if they were alone or not.]]

There's a difference between being a weasel and a felon -- Clinton (like George Dubya and many others) is the former.

1420Vel.GN

08-30-1999, 09:04 AM

BigIron, Yes It does set him apart from the rest. There is a huge difference between Clinton's LIES, and what was said by some of the past admin's people. For example when Bush said "read my lips..." he did add, I think the luxury tax (imagine that, a R taxing ONLY the rich), BUT he did what he thought was correct for the Country even though he knew it would be unpopular. Iran/Contra stuff, as the Bush example, was this for personal gain? I believe Clinton would lead the Country down any street that he thought was popular before a street he knew was correct.
"How well he did by the Country?" I don't understand. The performance of the Markets is due to the performance of the managers of the Corp's that drive the market, Clinton gets no credit here. The economy that the govt controls is not at the direction of the Pres, the R Congress made the plans that have made the difference.
I agree that he had a lot of trouble, but he still has not been punished like a millitary officer or even a drug store manager would have been punished for the same acts. And considering the position, the Pres should not even give the appearance of impropriety! lol on that one
"The only thing Starr could find to prosecute" Think about this: It took the IRS to jail some of the most notorious gangsters. Other criminal prosecution attempts were foiled due to lack of evidence. There is only two cases that I know of where over 100 people have evoked their 5th Amendment rights or fled the Country to avoid testifing. Lets not forget all those that killed themselves including a dozen body guards. Those two cases were for the gangsters and for Bill.
Now how many of you out there would say, man, that's cool!!! My friend is the Pres of the US, it will be excellent to go to the White House and hang out. Seems like Clinton's friends do themselves in????
Also, thanks for not picking on me for those obvious "Pitt" like comments that don't need to be replied to.

Pickman's Model

08-30-1999, 11:28 AM

Returning somewhat to the original question, for me, Jesse Helms ("If Ah heah that y'all been sellin' likker to them colluds...."); Phil Gramm, who strikes me as the absolute worst kind of ignorant, backwoods redneck (I know it's an act, but his role as the blue-collar Texan waxes very tiresome); John Kasich and Trent Lott, both because they look like snotty, smug, capitalist bastard businessmen; and Jack Kemp, if for no other reason than what with his white hair and high-pitched voice, he reminds me of Newt Gingrich, whom I despise as I do snake poison. (What with Newtie's latest escapades----not even the guts to tell his wife face to face he wants a divorce---I wonder what the Reps think of their "Family Values" poster boy now? Gawd, what a nasty, slimy, disgusting little piece of shit he is!) And of course, Slick Willie. He's about on the same par as Newt. Hillary is tiresome, too. And lest anybody think I hate Reps worse than Dems, I hasten to say that I dislike and distrust ALL politicians, regardless of race, party, platform, State of residence, or national origin. I think they are all equally crooked, equally liars, equally parasitic, and equally worthless.
Two words: Term Limitations.

pldennison

08-30-1999, 01:13 PM

That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.

Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury.

Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?

Exactly what does mutually consensual sex between adults have to do with sexual harrassment?

dougie_monty

08-30-1999, 01:49 PM

To Pickman's Model: In case you overlooked it, the 22nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limited the President to two elected terms. This came about because of F. D. Roosevelt being elected to four terms; a sixth-grade classmate told me, in 1960, that the Republicans (who controlled Congress at the time) "were sick of being slaughtered." When Pete Wilson was in the U. S. Senate, he tried to push through a repeal of that amendment so Reagan could run a third time. So much for high principles. (When Reagan ran for Governor of California in 1966 one of his campaing slogans was "No Man Is Good Three Times"--a direct reference to Edmund "Pat" Brown, who was in 1966 running for a third term. Brown shot back with, "Better a third termer than a third rater." I wish Brown had won that election.

cmkeller

08-30-1999, 05:31 PM

pldennison:

Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury.

Gee, I thought "lying under oath in a court of law" defined perjury. However, and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, if you've got more extensive knowledge of the details of perjury law than I do (and that's entirely possible), I'll defer to your knowledge. However, I am pretty sure that materiality has a very specific legal meaning, and that, while certain statements had been made as to whether or not Bill Clinton's testimony was essential to the case against him, it was never ruled immaterial.

Exactly what does mutually consensual sex between adults have to do with sexual harrassment?

Two things:

1) Sexual propositioning in the workplace (and yes, I know Monica had come on to him; I'm merely talking about from the Jones lawyers perspective) could be creating a hostile environment, and proving that the boss routinely had sex with employees could give greater credibility to the claims of one who said she'd been propositioned.

2) Giving preferred treatment to employees who submitted to his sexual demands (even consensually) over those who didn't, if this can be proven, is definitely sexual harassment.

Chaim Mattis Keller

cmkeller

08-31-1999, 12:08 AM

BigIron:

No -- it was set up to try to catch him in a lie, and for no other purpose.

It was set up to determine if he had lied under oath previously. It was not set up to get him to lie to it itself. And, no one asked him to lie that first time either. Yes, if he wanted to get away with whatever he did to Paula Jones, he had to lie about it. That's true of anyone on the wrong end of a court case. Courts were not set up to get someone to lie, though.

To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense.

And obviously, a lot of spineless, poll-watching, duty-avoiding senators agree with you.

True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case.

That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.

You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway.

Oh? Is this because you think Paula Jones didn't have a right to bring her case? Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?

Chaim Mattis Keller

Big Iron

09-01-1999, 08:19 PM

[[BigIron, Yes It does set him apart from the rest. There is a huge difference between Clinton's LIES, and what was said by some of the past admin's people.]] 1420Vel.GN

True -- Clinton's lies were petty and had no bearing whatsoever on the governance of the Nation or public policy in general -- as opposed to, say, giving arms to terrorists as ransom for American hostages, or running a covert terror war in Central America.

[[ For example when Bush said "read my lips..." he did add, I think the luxury tax (imagine that, a R taxing ONLY the rich), BUT he did what he thought was correct for the Country even though he knew it would be unpopular. ]]

What can you possibly be babbling about?

[[Iran/Contra stuff, as the Bush example, was this for personal gain? ]]

Every bit as much as Clinton's denial of getting blown by Monica was, sure.

[[ I believe Clinton would lead the Country down any street that he thought was popular before a street he knew was correct.]]

I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

[["How well he did by the Country?" I don't understand. ]]

Talk about things that go without saying ...

[[The performance of the Markets is due to the performance of the managers of the Corp's that drive the market, Clinton gets no credit here. ]]

See above ...

First of all, he deserves as much credit for the robust economy (not just the markets) as any other President ever merited (some, not tons), since he has been a staunch free trader and has (contrary to his lip-service opponents and predecessors) actually made serious progress toward balancing the US budget.

Second of all, that's not what you were talking about regarding what Clinton will be doing to burnish his "legacy."

[[ The economy that the govt controls is not at the direction of the Pres, the R Congress made the plans that have made the difference.]]

Thank you for confirming your idiocy.

[[I agree that he had a lot of trouble, but he still has not been punished like a millitary officer or even a drug store manager would have been punished for the same acts.]]

Drug store manager, no -- basic corporate CEO? He's been hassled far more than they would have been in most cases.

[[ And considering the position, the Pres should not even give the appearance of impropriety! lol on that one ]]

I love that line -- I can't find much that's really improper, but I still think there is an "appearance of impropriety." Right ...

Here at the Straight Dope, of course, we believe in bringing perceptions in line with reality.

[["The only thing Starr could find to prosecute" Think about this: It took the IRS to jail some of the most notorious gangsters. Other criminal prosecution attempts were foiled due to lack of evidence. ]]

Well, yeah, why should you need evidence to prosecute somebody, huh? What a zany idea!

[[There is only two cases that I know of where over 100 people have evoked their 5th Amendment rights or fled the Country to avoid testifing. Lets not forget all those that killed themselves including a dozen body guards. Those two cases were for the gangsters and for Bill. ]]

Does your doctor know you have access to a computer in your ward?

Big Iron

09-01-1999, 08:32 PM

[[Yes, if he wanted to get away with whatever he did to Paula Jones, he had to lie about it.]] cmkeller

Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway.

[[ That's true of anyone on the wrong end of a court case. ]]

Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on "the wrong end" of it.

[["To the extent that he lied before the Grand Jury, that may (or may not) have been perjury, although I would contend that it does not remotely approach the level of an impeachable offense."

And obviously, a lot of spineless, poll-watching, duty-avoiding senators agree with you.]]

Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.

[["True -- however, it is about as clear as can be that his fib in the Jones deposition did not constitute perjury, since the question he weaseled on was not material to the case."

That's absolutely not true. Not only is immateriality irrelevant to a perjury issue, his testimony (or any part of it) was never declared to be immaterial.]]

I'm always fascinated by the legal ruminations of non-lawyers. Materiality, to my recollection, is an element of perjury, and the judge in that case ruled (after the deposition, alas) that the answers regarding Lewinski would not be admissable at trial (because, of course, they were not material).

But do tell why you imagine the contrary is true.

[["You're quite correct, although he should never have had to answer such questions anyway."

Oh? Is this because you think Paula Jones didn't have a right to bring her case?]]

No, Einstein, it's because the qurestions were not material to the case (and were, of course, asked for the purpose of political harassment and possibly extortion).

[[ Or because you think a person's history of sex with employees is irrelevant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit?]]

There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!

Big Iron

09-01-1999, 08:38 PM

[["Sorry, but the first part, at least, is completely wrong. Materiality, in fact, almost defines perjury." PLD

Gee, I thought "lying under oath in a court of law" defined perjury. However, and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, if you've got more extensive knowledge of the details of perjury law than I do (and that's entirely possible), I'll defer to your knowledge. ]]cmkeller

If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?

1420Vel.GN

09-02-1999, 09:28 AM

Big Iron, You call me an idiot, fuck you! You are the one who is clueless. I was speaking FACT. One would think that an lawyer would know how the govt works. Meet me in the Pitt if you wish to continue your ranting.
AND since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I was "babbling" about I'll go through the record - I hate this why can't the dumbass follow it without assistance?
You said, in reference to my comment about Clinton being a lier, that it really sets him apart from the others. I said that Bush's popular comment "read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by a luxury tax - he lied about new taxes. NOW pay attention this is where it takes the intellect to resolve an ethical dilemma. Bush, did add a new tax even though he knew it might be a political disaster, because he thought it was the correct thing to do for the Country. The weapons for hostages was a bargin, I know we are not susposed "deal" with terroists, but that was a million dollar deal for a dollar. So what, we gave some junk that is relatively impotent for human life. Point is that those Republicans risked their political future for the benefit of the American People. Clinton lied just to cover his own ass. Kind of like the difference between telling a young child that there IS a Santa Claus or that the dress looks good. Clinton used the power of his office for personal gain and to subvert the legal process - to hide the real maggot he is.
Also, this is not a court of law, the specific rules of evidence may have created a situation where the court did not see the evidence, but we all know what happened. You say that you "can't find much that's really improper." Well in the few posts of yours that I have read, I have determined that your sense of observation is not to be relied on. I don't have a problem with the way our system works with regard to a criminal getting off because of rules that only allow certain types of evidence. It is a price we pay to maintain the freedoms we have - but don't tell *me* Bill is not guilty. There is still the truth!
If it were as simple as electing a Republican President the Country's budget problems would have been solved with the past administrations. But the last time the budget was in check, was the last time we had a Republican Congress. The Pres is not the owner of a company that orders all the going-ons in the business. Congress controlls the spending, has the appropriations committees...

cmkeller

09-02-1999, 03:13 PM

Big Iron:

First of all, please do us all a favor and drink a nice, cool glass of ice water before you post.

Now, to address your points:

If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?

I didn't quite have no idea, however, I'll admit that my understanding of it was not as deep as a certified lawyer. My use of "absolutely," which I'll admit was incorrect, and for it I apoligize, was meant to apply to the idea that Clinton didn't perjure himself for lack of materiality, not specifically the assertion that materiality is irrelevant to perjury.

Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway.

My, how quick you are to remember that it was dismissed...and how easily you forget that it was re-opened after Clinton admitted to the lie before Starr's grand jury.

Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on "the wrong end" of it.

Based on his false testimony. As I pointed out, it was re-opened when he admitted that his testimony had been false.

Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.

First of all, it's hardly laughable to suggest that a felony is "serious wrongdoing." Secondly, it's spineless to (two examples here) A) talk tough about the president's lies, like so many Senators...even Democrats (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut comes to mind here)...did until they were actually in a position to do something about it, B) to actually say that perjury is an impeachable offense, and that one believes the president to have been guilty of perjury, but to not vote against him (Robert Byrd of West Virginia did just this).

(because, of course, they were not material).

Was that actually stated, or is that your assumption as to why the testimony was ruled inadmissable? I'll try to look this up. After all, this should be a matter of fact, not of legal understanding (an arena in which, I'll admit, you know more than I).

There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!

Right now, I'm chewing on your condescension, and not finding it very palatable. This isn't the BBQ pit; let's try to debate like friend, or at least polite acquaintances, not put people down. I don't recall insulting you just because I thought (and in some matters, still think) you're wrong.

And, why is this a case in which the defendant's history of employee sex is irrelevant? It seems to me that Paula Jones was charging that Bill Clinton traded employment favors for sex. Whether or not you believe she was correct, doesn't the allegation make such a history a relevant factor?

Chaim Mattis Keller

pldennison

09-02-1999, 03:18 PM

Chaim, Monica Lewinsky was not an employee of the President by any stretch of the imagination. She was part of an intern program that picks up, what, a couple dozen young adults every year? He wasn't any a position to grant anything.

dougie_monty

09-02-1999, 03:31 PM

Have the Teeming Millions heard the latest about Newt Gingrich?? Man, does he now come off as a hypocrite!! Especially so after how he whined against Clinton!

cmkeller

09-02-1999, 04:25 PM

pldennison:

Chaim, Monica Lewinsky was not an employee of the President by any stretch of the imagination. She was part of an intern program that picks up, what, a couple dozen young adults every year? He wasn't any a position to grant anything.

I'll grant you that usually the interns have nothing to do with the president directly.

But are you seriously suggesting that if the president is of mind to advance the career of one, that he'd be unable to do so?

Even if we're not talking about positions within the executive branch, but about the president calling in powerful friends to pull strings for her...isn't that exactly what he was accused of (and I'm not saying guilty of) doing, re: Vernon Jordan? Are you suggesting that he couldn't?

dougie_monty:

Yeah, I practically retched when I heard about that. I used to think he wasn't such a bad person, but now, I thank G-d he decided to quit politics. (Hmmm...I wonder if he quit because he was afraid his affair would come to light if he stayed?)

Chaim Mattis Keller

dougie_monty

09-02-1999, 04:28 PM

By the way, Chaim: I suppose you also knew Gingrich has a lesbian sister. i know that wouldn't sit well with the Republicans' official position about "family values."

cmkeller

09-02-1999, 05:51 PM

dougie_monty:

By the way, Chaim: I suppose you also knew Gingrich has a lesbian sister. i know that wouldn't sit well with the Republicans' official position about "family values."

Is he his sister's keeper?

Chaim Mattis Keller

dougie_monty

09-02-1999, 06:07 PM

Only if she were 'bi,' Chaim.

Big Iron

09-05-1999, 06:18 PM

[[Big Iron, You call me an idiot, fuck you! You are the one who is clueless. I was speaking FACT.]] 1420Vel

Uh huh, right ... call me when you find out what a "fact" is.

[[ One would think that an lawyer would know how the govt works. Meet me in the Pitt if you wish to continue your ranting.]]

I do indeed, tough guy -- I know (unlike you) that the President plays an important role in the budget process, and that Clinton (unlike, say, Reagan) actually submitted proposed budgets that were roughly in balance.

[[AND since you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I was "babbling" about I'll go through the record - I hate this why can't the dumbass follow it without assistance?]]

Sorry, what you posted was incoherent.

[[You said, in reference to my comment about Clinton being a lier, that it really sets him apart from the others. I said that Bush's popular comment "read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by a luxury tax - he lied about new taxes. ]]

Well, the "lie" (and it wasn't even really a lie, it was reneging on his stupid pledge) was mainly in the subsequent income tax hike. That's what he got crucified for.

[[NOW pay attention this is where it takes the intellect to resolve an ethical dilemma.]]

Yers, you're clearly in a position to give lessons.

[[ Bush, did add a new tax even though he knew it might be a political disaster, because he thought it was the correct thing to do for the Country.]]

I agree -- he was unfairly pilloried for that act of modest fiscal responsibility.

[[ The weapons for hostages was a bargin, I know we are not susposed "deal" with terroists, but that was a million dollar deal for a dollar. ]]

So that makes it OK to lie about it?

[[So what, we gave some junk that is relatively impotent for human life. Point is that those Republicans risked their political future for the benefit of the American People.]]

They lied about those things, of course, to protect their butts, just like Wild Bill -- sorry.

[[Kind of like the difference between telling a young child that there IS a Santa Claus or that the dress looks good. Clinton used the power of his office for personal gain and to subvert the legal process - to hide the real maggot he is.]]

What "personal gain" can you possibly be yammering about?

[[Also, this is not a court of law, the specific rules of evidence may have created a situation where the court did not see the evidence, but we all know what happened.]]

Right, who cares about evidence, you know he's guilty -- very convincing.

[[ You say that you "can't find much that's really improper." Well in the few posts of yours that I have read, I have determined that your sense of observation is not to be relied on.]]

Well, I'm still waiting for those things -- oh, right, that would require some credible evidence, which is sadly inconvenient for your assertions.

[[ I don't have a problem with the way our system works with regard to a criminal getting off because of rules that only allow certain types of evidence. It is a price we pay to maintain the freedoms we have - but don't tell *me* Bill is not guilty.]]

Guilty of what, again?

[[If it were as simple as electing a Republican President the Country's budget problems would have been solved with the past administrations.]]

Obviously it wasn't that simple -- Reagan never even tried to balance the budget, despite having run on that plank.

Big Iron

09-05-1999, 06:32 PM

[["If you didn't haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was "absolutely not true," affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?

I didn't quite have no idea, however, I'll admit that my understanding of it was not as deep as a certified lawyer. My use of "absolutely," which I'll admit was incorrect, and for it I apoligize, was meant to apply to the idea that Clinton didn't perjure himself for lack of materiality, not specifically the assertion that materiality is irrelevant to perjury.]] cmkeller

Well, I believe you are still wrong about that, too.

[["Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway."

My, how quick you are to remember that it was dismissed...and how easily you forget that it was re-opened after Clinton admitted to the lie before Starr's grand jury.]]

In what way was it "re-opened"? It certainly was not "re-opened" as a result of the revelation that he got a few BJs from Monica.

[["Of course, according to the judge he wasn't on 'the wrong end' of it.

Based on his false testimony. As I pointed out, it was re-opened when he admitted that his testimony had been false.]]

Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge's decision -- a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read.

[["Right, it's mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.

First of all, it's hardly laughable to suggest that a felony is "serious wrongdoing." Secondly, it's spineless to (two examples here) A) talk tough about the president's lies, like so many Senators...even Democrats (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut comes to mind here)...did until they were actually in a position to do something about it, B) to actually say that perjury is an impeachable offense, and that one believes the president to have been guilty of perjury, but to not vote against him (Robert Byrd of West Virginia did just this).]]

Sorry, I'm sticking with my original position -- fibbing on a non-material issue in a deposition in a civil case unrelated to the guy's duties in office (and, perhaps, fibbing about the fibbing) was wrong, but it was not remotely impeachable.

[["(because, of course, they were not material)."

Was that actually stated, or is that your assumption as to why the testimony was ruled inadmissable?]]

I can't imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason.

[["There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all -- in many cases (like this one) that's absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!"

Right now, I'm chewing on your condescension, and not finding it very palatable.]]

Tell you what -- I won't tell you how to interpret the Torah, and you don't tell me how to interpret the law of labor and employment.

[[And, why is this a case in which the defendant's history of employee sex is irrelevant?]]

Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate.

[[ It seems to me that Paula Jones was charging that Bill Clinton traded employment favors for sex. Whether or not you believe she was correct, doesn't the allegation make such a history a relevant factor?]]

That's not my recollection of her allegation -- she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred.

pldennison

09-06-1999, 05:15 PM

I would remind everybody that not only was the arms-for-hostages situation covered by lies to the American people, it violated a specific law that was enacted exactly to prevent situations like what occurred. Also, I'm not sure what stands to be lost by telling the American people that the government is about to get their citizens released.

Anyone who really thinks Bill Clinton getting his dick sucked is worse than that really needs to have their head examined.

1420Vel.GN

09-06-1999, 11:45 PM

I'll bet the hostages don't think so! And it's not just about the bj, it is about his abuse of woman and then attacking people who tried to get to the truth or accused him of behavior that was not proper.
Those poor guys had been held way to long, Clinton would not have cared, but a few people risked their political careers to help others in a bad situation - they could have just let the hostages sit.

1420Vel.GN

09-07-1999, 12:14 AM

BigIron, if you are so smart then tell me how the Pres makes such a difference, so quickly, in the Country's fiscal issues. We are just now realizing the policies of Regan/Bush.

BTW, according to a group of the brightest economists, (the DOJ only hires the best Phd's from the best schools) it is Regan's policies that have put the Nation in its prosperous position.

The first four years of the Clinton admn nothing was in balance. It was not untill the R majority took hold of Congress and the Contract with America, that the budget turned around.

The Pres should be a leader of the people, somebody we can look-up to, one who infulences policy; the Congress actively manages and makes policy for the Country.

"Still waiting" My God man! Haven't you been paying attention? Again, I hate having to explain things Like I'm writing a scholarly paper, I am assuming that the audiance has some background - BI you seem to so why...
Clinton Lied and blamed everybody else about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," he used the power of his office to evade and subvert the judicial process.
Why? Personal gain? If you can't figure it out, why a politician desires to hide criminal behavior then you must be detached. If he did nothing wrong why did he pay Jones $800,000? Why did a judge recently fine him $100,000? If he is so innocent why hasn't he offered any evidence to show that all or some of the claims are false.

And yes it is OK to not be truthful (read my post again) and try not to take me out of context! With Clinton it was all about him, and hiding what he did for himself. The lie about hostages was a mater of National Security.
later

Big Iron

09-08-1999, 06:22 PM

[[BigIron, if you are so smart then tell me how the Pres makes such a difference, so quickly, in the Country's fiscal issues.]] 1420Vel.

As usual, your assertions are garbled, but the President, among other things, generally sets the tone and agenda for legislation, actively proposing many of the bills, and specifically proposing a budget each year (a proposal that carries a lot of weight in light of the President's veto power). In addition, the President is the most important player regarding international agreements (such as those regarding trade).

[[ We are just now realizing the policies of Regan/Bush.]]

Right, Perfessor -- more like we're just repairing them.

In any event, I think it's cute how you've gone from "it's the Congress that controls the budget/economy"
(attempting to give all the credit to the recently-Republican Congress) to "past Presidents are responsible for the current robust economy" (to avoid the uncomfortable fact of Clinton's reign for the last 7 years and the fact that untoil recently Congress was largely in Democratic control).

[[BTW, according to a group of the brightest economists, (the DOJ only hires the best Phd's from the best schools) it is Regan's policies that have put the Nation in its prosperous position.]]

According to "a group" of them, huh? Well, that's certainly convincing!

Oh, and how long are you gonna keep misspelling the old guy's name?

And what the heck is the "DOJ"? Department of Justice (the usual meaning)? They aren't hiring economists to study such matters.

[[The first four years of the Clinton admn nothing was in balance. It was not untill the R majority took hold of Congress and the Contract with America, that the budget turned around.]]

Right, whatever you say -- budgets go from imbalance to balance overnight, uh huh.

[["Still waiting" My God man! Haven't you been paying attention? Again, I hate having to explain things Like I'm writing a scholarly paper, I am assuming that the audiance has some background - BI you seem to so why...
Clinton Lied and blamed everybody else about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," he used the power of his office to evade and subvert the judicial process.]]

God forbid you should have to specify which lies and what wrongdoings, and what evidence supports your charges, huh? I realize that is asking an awful lot of you, and for you is the equivalent of "writing a scholarly paper." How much more convenient to just be able to assume the truth of your assertions, here, the notion that Clinton is guilty of a wide range of illegal and improper activities.

Too bad for you that shit don't fly here.

[[Why? Personal gain? If you can't figure it out, why a politician desires to hide criminal behavior then you must be detached.]]

And which criminal behavior was that, again?

[[ If he did nothing wrong why did he pay Jones $800,000? ]]

I think it was less than that, but the answer is because further litigation would entail further expense, because the outcome of any case is always at least somewhat in doubt, and because it was of considerable value for him to put the matter behind him as best he could, reardless of the case's merits (and they were very few).

[[ Why did a judge recently fine him $100,000?]]

He was wrong to lie in his deposition -- we've established that so far.

[[ If he is so innocent why hasn't he offered any evidence to show that all or some of the claims are false.]]

Concerning what, specifically?

[[And yes it is OK to not be truthful (read my post again) and try not to take me out of context!]]

I didn't take you out of context in the least, so quit your ignorant whining about it.

[[ With Clinton it was all about him, and hiding what he did for himself. The lie about hostages was a mater of National Security.]]

Right, Reagan and Co. lied about Iran/Contra to protecty "national security." Thanks for the laugh.

1420Vel.GN

09-08-1999, 10:29 PM

BigIron, "that shit don't fly here" - again you have just taken what I've said an just hit me with a bunch of personal attacks. If you had any substance you would refute my comments instead of claiming "ignorant whining". And stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it stupid. I never said "all" the credit goes to the R Congress or that they turned the budget around "over night"
If the policy is under repair as you say, then how is it already effecting the State?

AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd's from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed's will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.

Yes it is true that the President has influence in the drafting of and proposes parts of the budget; sets the tone and agenda (that's what I was saying), but many of the parts that Clinton proposed that actually became part of the budget sounded as if he read the plan directly form the Contract with America.- read my post again

If you can't find anything incorrect with my post, just keep your hole shut! save the ranting for the pit, or just cut the kidding around and say something about my mother, because I am growing tired of your whining.

I provide examples and reasons, and you often answer with "very convincing" and leave it at that - have you got something more convincing? If you did, you would probably post it

pldennison

09-09-1999, 02:08 PM

First of all, Monica was hardly a direct subordinate. Yes, she worked in the White House, but not only is there someone specifically charged with overseeing interns, she was also working under Leon Panetta.

Hey, weren't you just on the other side of this fence?

Big Iron

09-09-1999, 04:24 PM

[[BigIron, "that shit don't fly here" - again you have just taken what I've said an just hit me with a bunch of personal attacks.]] 1420Vel.

Your continued dishonest whining gets you nowhere -- my statement was an accurate description of the fact that around these parts you can't get away with saying something is true without providing some evidence. I have asked for specific charges and some evidence to support them -- you continue to offer neither.

[[ If you had any substance you would refute my comments instead of claiming "ignorant whining". ]]

Ahhh ... so you consider it a high-road kinda non-personal rsponse of substance to follow my request that you support your vague allegation with the assertion that I lack "substance." Gotcha ...

Meanwhile, I am hardly able to "refute" your assertions if you refuse to make any specific ones.

[[And stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it stupid. I never said "all" the credit goes to the R Congress or that they turned the budget around "over night"]]

That was a fair characterization of your posts.

[[If the policy is under repair as you say, then how is it already effecting the State?]]

Since the question part of this in incomprehensible, I'll just specify that the part "under repair" involves the massive budget deficet racked up by prior administrations.

[[AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd's from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed's will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.]]

I'm afraid you are going to have to provide some support for this proposition -- perhaps it is true, but it makes no sense on its face, and I have never heard of any such thing.

[[Yes it is true that the President has influence in the drafting of and proposes parts of the budget; sets the tone and agenda (that's what I was saying), but many of the parts that Clinton proposed that actually became part of the budget sounded as if he read the plan directly form the Contract with America.- read my post again ]]

Please -- it was silly enough on the first read-through.

[[If you can't find anything incorrect with my post, just keep your hole shut!]]

Of course, I have identified many deficiencies in what you have posted, mainly in the realm of an absence of support and specificity. You continue to evade them, retreating to ad hominem laced complaints about my supposed personal attacks. Very impressive.

[[ save the ranting for the pit, or just cut the kidding around and say something about my mother, because I am growing tired of your whining.

I provide examples and reasons, and you often answer with "very convincing" and leave it at that - have you got something more convincing? If you did, you would probably post it]]

You have refused to provide specifics and support at every instance when they are requested.

Big Iron

09-09-1999, 04:37 PM

[["In what way was it 're-opened'?

My bad. I had thought that the case had been genuinely re-instated, but apparently (best as I can tell, at least), it was merely on appeal when Clinton and Jones settled it out of court. However, Clinton's lies were apparently one of the points made by the Jones lawyers in the appeal.]] cmkeller

Just because you make an argument on appeal doesn't mean it will be (or should be) taken seriously. Clinton falsely denying he got blown by Lewinsky had no bearing on the case.

[["Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge's decision -- a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read."

You mean the judge's decision to dismiss the case? True, that was because Jones had not proven damage.]]

Yes, that is the decision we have been talking about, and which was on appeal.

[["I can't imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason."

The only mention I've been able to find of the materiality issue (maybe there are others, but I looked pretty hard) was in Clinton's lawyers' defense brief. In it, they contend that his testimony had not been material, and they give their reasons why they think it wasn't, but at no time did they write that the judge had actually ruled it immaterial, which would be an odd omission.]]

That ruling was likely not published, as is the case with most interlocutory rulings.

[["Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate."

First of all, Monica was hardly a direct subordinate. Yes, she worked in the White House, but not only is there someone specifically charged with overseeing interns, she was also working under Leon Panetta. Second of all, Paula Jones never said Bill Clinton engaged in forced sex with her or tried to force it upon her.]]

It was a non-consensual encounter she alleged, under circumstances completely removed from he nominal staus as his "subordinate."

[["That's not my recollection of her allegation -- she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred."

My understanding of the Jones lawyers strategy was that they were going to prove that, although Clinton didn't actively damage those who didn't have sex with him, he did promote the careers of those who did, with Monica as one example. When Clinton swore he never had sex with Monica (or anyone other than his wife), the Jones lawyers had no evidence of this, so couldn't include it in their claim. However, had he not lied under oath, the truth would have provided the evidence they need to include it in their claim (the Tripp tapes having not come forward until several months later).]]

There are several problems with that, including (1) one incident does not make a pattern, (2) Monica's career was never advanced as a reward for sex, and (3) it is not generally against the law (i.e., Title VII) to treat an employee BETTER because he or she had sex with you (unless it's at the direct expense of someone who refused to have sex with you) -- in other words, even if there was evidence, the theory is not a legally valid one.

Big Iron

09-09-1999, 04:45 PM

{{[[AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd's from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed's will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.]]

I'm afraid you are going to have to provide some support for this proposition -- perhaps it is true, but it makes no sense on its face, and I have never heard of any such thing.}} Me

BTW, it will not serve simply to note that the DOJ anti-trust division employs some economists, as these people are hired specifically to analyze cases for actual or potential anti-trust prosecution.

1420Vel.GN

09-09-1999, 06:52 PM

BigIron, just because you don't know it to be true doesn't mean it is a lie.
It is not my responsibility to educate an ignoramus. If you are calling me a lier than offer some proof. I'm tired of your opinion.

We are talking about the impeached, convicted Pres, right? I can understand your love for Bill; after all he has spent massive amounts on lawyers

dougie_monty

09-09-1999, 07:02 PM

Okay, you despise Clinton, I get the message, Vel. did you want Bush or Dole as president instead?
Sorry, but Clinton got more votes. What do you want, a recount?

cmkeller

09-10-1999, 12:54 AM

Big Iron:

Done some research. So here goes:

But first things first:

In what way was it "re-opened"?

My bad. I had thought that the case had been genuinely re-instated, but apparently (best as I can tell, at least), it was merely on appeal when Clinton and Jones settled it out of court. However, Clinton's lies were apparently one of the points made by the Jones lawyers in the appeal.

Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge's decision -- a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read.

You mean the judge's decision to dismiss the case? True, that was because Jones had not proven damage.

Sorry, I'm sticking with my original position -- fibbing on a non-material issue in a deposition in a civil case unrelated to the guy's duties in office (and, perhaps, fibbing about the fibbing) was wrong, but it was not remotely impeachable.

You're welcome to your opinion; I was merely pointing out that there were a number of senators who had openly spoken of impeachment but ended up not doing it when they actually had the power to.

I can't imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason.

The only mention I've been able to find of the materiality issue (maybe there are others, but I looked pretty hard) was in Clinton's lawyers' defense brief. In it, they contend that his testimony had not been material, and they give their reasons why they think it wasn't, but at no time did they write that the judge had actually ruled it immaterial, which would be an odd omission.

Tell you what -- I won't tell you how to interpret the Torah, and you don't tell me how to interpret the law of labor and employment.

First of all, I hadn't realized you're a lawyer until now. Second of all, even when you're not discussing legal issues, you have a tendency to be insulting toward people who disagree with you. I'll tell you what -- let's all try to raise one another's awareness of facts they may not have been aware of before discussing the issue at hand, in whatever subject, without attempting to insult the other. This isn't courtroom combat; it's friendly (or should be) discussion...let's all keep it that way.

Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate.

First of all, Monica was hardly a direct subordinate. Yes, she worked in the White House, but not only is there someone specifically charged with overseeing interns, she was also working under Leon Panetta. Second of all, Paula Jones never said Bill Clinton engaged in forced sex with her or tried to force it upon her.

That's not my recollection of her allegation -- she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred.

My understanding of the Jones lawyers strategy was that they were going to prove that, although Clinton didn't actively damage those who didn't have sex with him, he did promote the careers of those who did, with Monica as one example. When Clinton swore he never had sex with Monica (or anyone other than his wife), the Jones lawyers had no evidence of this, so couldn't include it in their claim. However, had he not lied under oath, the truth would have provided the evidence they need to include it in their claim (the Tripp tapes having not come forward until several months later).

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

cmkeller

09-10-1999, 11:09 AM

BigIron:

[["I can't imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason."

The only mention I've been able to find of the materiality issue (maybe there are others, but I looked pretty hard) was in Clinton's lawyers' defense brief. In it, they contend that his testimony had not been material, and they give their reasons why they think it wasn't, but at no time did they write that the judge had actually ruled it immaterial, which would be an odd omission.]]

That ruling was likely not published, as is the case with most interlocutory rulings.

Nope! I've got the genuine straight dope on this one! By amazing coincidence, I heard this quoted on a radio show yesterday, and I've looked it up for real. The following is a direct quote from footnote 7 in Judge Wright's finding Bill Clinton in contempt of court:

"In so ruling (that the Lewinsky evidence would be inadmissable in the Jones case), this court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case."

So, the President's testimony about the Lewinsky affair was never ruled immaterial.

There are several problems with that, including (1) one incident does not make a pattern,

Monica Lewinsky was hardly the only "Jane Doe" that the Jones lawyers were asking about or alleging. They had a lot of names, intending to establish a pattern. They asked Bill Clinton to name all state or federal employees he'd had sex with, and he said none. Yes, there were specific questions about Lewinsky later, but they were not trying to build their whole case around her.

(2) Monica's career was never advanced as a reward for sex

In the end, I'll admit it seems that way, however, before the impeachment hearing, it sure looked like the President had tried to use his connections to get her a job she wanted. The Jones lawyers were working with that information.

(3) it is not generally against the law (i.e., Title VII) to treat an employee BETTER because he or she had sex with you (unless it's at the direct expense of someone who refused to have sex with you) -- in other words, even if there was evidence, the theory is not a legally valid one.

My understanding of the Jones' lawyers strategy was that they were attempting to say that the preferential treatment given to those he had sex with made the workplace a hostile environment for those with whom he didn't.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Big Iron

09-10-1999, 05:56 PM

[[BigIron, just because you don't know it to be true doesn't mean it is a lie.
It is not my responsibility to educate an ignoramus. If you are calling me a lier than offer some proof. ]] 1420Vel.

So now you feel it's up to others to disprove your dubious assertions, rather than up to you to support them? I take it from your response here that, in fact, you cannot provide any support for the the assertions you have made here, and that this is your attempt at cleverly declaring victory and pulling out.

[[I'm tired of your opinion.]]

I'm sure you find it frustrating to be embarassed as you have been, and exasperating to have to actually try to support your statements.

[[We are talking about the impeached, convicted Pres, right?]]

Convicted of what? He hasn't been convicted of anything.

[[ I can understand your love for Bill; after all he has spent massive amounts on lawyers ]]

Yeah, just because I take issue with the often-hysterical ranting of Clinton-haters, that means I "love" him. Right ...

Big Iron

09-10-1999, 06:04 PM

[[I've got the genuine straight dope on this one! By amazing coincidence, I heard this quoted on a radio show yesterday, and I've looked it up for real. The following is a direct quote from footnote 7 in Judge Wright's finding Bill Clinton in contempt of court:

"In so ruling (that the Lewinsky evidence would be inadmissable in the Jones case), this court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case."]] cmkeller

Perhaps -- got a link or a citation? And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?

[[So, the President's testimony about the Lewinsky affair was never ruled immaterial.]]

Perhaps -- doesn't change the fact that indeed it WAS immaterial.

[["There are several problems with that, including (1) one incident does not make a pattern,"

Monica Lewinsky was hardly the only "Jane Doe" that the Jones lawyers were asking about or alleging. They had a lot of names, intending to establish a pattern. They asked Bill Clinton to name all state or federal employees he'd had sex with, and he said none. Yes, there were specific questions about Lewinsky later, but they were not trying to build their whole case around her.]]

It seems they didn't get too far with them, either.

[["(2) Monica's career was never advanced as a reward for sex "

In the end, I'll admit it seems that way, however, before the impeachment hearing, it sure looked like the President had tried to use his connections to get her a job she wanted. The Jones lawyers were working with that information.]]

If anything, it got her kicked out of the White House and into an office in Arlington.

"(3) it is not generally against the law (i.e., Title VII) to treat an employee BETTER because he or she had sex with you (unless it's at the direct expense of someone who refused to have sex with you) -- in other words, even if there was evidence, the theory is not a legally valid one."

My understanding of the Jones' lawyers strategy was that they were attempting to say that the preferential treatment given to those he had sex with made the workplace a hostile environment for those with whom he didn't.]]

Since Jones was not even really an employee of Clinton's in any real sense, never having the slightest work-related contact with him or any of her peers, that theory can only be described as frivolous.

dougie_monty

09-10-1999, 06:18 PM

Yeah..."Read more lips no more taxes. And four more years of that son-of-a-bitch Quayle! Sieg Heil!!

1420Vel.GN

09-11-1999, 12:03 AM

monty, yeah I'd rather of had Bush. at least parents would not have to tell their young children to go away because the Pres is on!

1420Vel.GN

09-11-1999, 01:31 AM

Bigi, after a night of partying, I don't have the energy to look-up and find cites for you. One expects the other debater to have some background. Getting tired of repeating my self too.

"up to others to disprove" a scientist tests a hypothesis by attempting to disprove the null-hyp. "embarrassed" ??? Why, it is you that have hardly offered anything except for series of snide remarks

Big Iron

09-11-1999, 01:52 AM

[[Bigi, after a night of partying, I don't have the energy to look-up and find cites for you. ]] 1420Vel.Non.

Nor at any other time, it seems.

1420Vel.GN

09-11-1999, 01:47 PM

it seems to you, but then again you "don't seem to find much..." anyway!
another clever remark-WoW

cmkeller

09-13-1999, 10:48 AM

BigIron:

Perhaps -- got a link or a citation? And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?

Well, that was a citation, but here's a link...

http://209.184.52.2/ecm/dc_images/2509249.PDF

It's an Adobe Acrobat document. I hope this direct link works; you might be required to sign in somewhere. This is on the web site of the Eastern District of Arkansas court. The footnote is on the bottom of page 7.

And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?

Says it right there in the footnote. Basically, the court assumed that Clinton and Monica would continue to deny any affair in the absence of any extrinsic evidence, so dwelling on that point would have delayed the trial to an unreasonable degree for no apparent good reason.

Perhaps -- doesn't change the fact that indeed it WAS immaterial.

That may be your opinion, but Judge Wright didn't think so. She wrote it may have been material (yes, I admit it was a maybe) to proving intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.

Anyway, (and I'm not saying this as an absolute...if I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me in a non-abusive manner) wouldn't lying about it be perjury unless the judge specifically decalred it immaterial? Isn't a piece of evidence (or testimony) material unless declared otherwise?

If anything, it got her kicked out of the White House and into an office in Arlington.

True, but that wasn't the President's doing. I can only guess that they were looking at the Vernon Jordan angle.

Since Jones was not even really an employee of Clinton's in any real sense, never having the slightest work-related contact with him or any of her peers, that theory can only be described as frivolous.

I'll admit it's a bit flimsy, but I can also see that if I worked for a state, and had what was from my point of view an unhappy encounter with the governor, I'd certainly be nervous for my job.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Big Iron

09-13-1999, 07:59 PM

[["Perhaps -- got a link or a citation? And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?"

Well, that was a citation, but here's a link...]] cmkeller
http://209.184.52.2/ecm/dc_images/2509249.PDF ]]

Thanks for the link -- BTW, what I meant by a "citation" was something like, "775 F.Supp. 666."

[["And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?"

Says it right there in the footnote. Basically, the court assumed that Clinton and Monica would continue to deny any affair in the absence of any extrinsic evidence, so dwelling on that point would have delayed the trial to an unreasonable degree for no apparent good reason.]]

Yup -- the court also noted, however, that evidence regarding Lewinkski did not bear on any of the core issues of the case.

[["Perhaps -- doesn't change the fact that indeed it WAS immaterial."

That may be your opinion, but Judge Wright didn't think so. She wrote it may have been material (yes, I admit it was a maybe) to proving intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.]]

She did not rule on the materiality of that evidence one way or another -- period. I am confident that the "opinion" of most lawyers would be that such evidence was not material. It may be noted that this seemed to be the opinion of the majority of the House of Representatives (FWIW), since it rejected the Article of Impeachment based on the accusation that he committed perjury in that deposition.

[[Anyway, (and I'm not saying this as an absolute...if I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me in a non-abusive manner) wouldn't lying about it be perjury unless the judge specifically decalred it immaterial? Isn't a piece of evidence (or testimony) material unless declared otherwise?]]

No, that would have to be separately determined.

[["If anything, it got her kicked out of the White House and into an office in Arlington."

True, but that wasn't the President's doing. I can only guess that they were looking at the Vernon Jordan angle.]]

Which is wholly beside the point -- the fact is that canoodling with Clinton diod not in fact advance her government "career."

[["Since Jones was not even really an employee of Clinton's in any real sense, never having the slightest work-related contact with him or any of her peers, that theory can only be described as frivolous."

I'll admit it's a bit flimsy, but I can also see that if I worked for a state, and had what was from my point of view an unhappy encounter with the governor, I'd certainly be nervous for my job.]]

Unfortunately for the validity of her case, the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that such fears were misplaced (putting aside the dubious proposition that her version of the encounter were reasonably accurate).

cmkeller

09-15-1999, 09:47 AM

Big Iron:

It may be noted that this seemed to be the opinion of the majority of the House of Representatives (FWIW), since it rejected the Article of Impeachment based on the accusation that he committed perjury in that deposition.

And boy, wasn't that one of the weirdest things you've ever seen? (Well, probably not...you're a lawyer.) I mean, they voted to impeach him for lying about lying, but not for the original lying.

The only rational explanation I heard for this was that the Congressmen who voted for article 2 but not article 1 felt that Clinton was warned by Congress not to lie to Starr's grand jury, so, while they felt an ordinary lie under oath was forgivable, they couldn't bring themselves to forgive lying after the warning.

But that was a really strange thing that Congress did there.

No, that would have to be separately determined.

So basically, if (hypothetically) Starr decides to try and indict Clinton for perjury in the Jones case after Clinton leaves office, a judge would have to determine then whether or not his testimony was material?

Since the case got settled before ever coming to trial, how would they decide that? Would they make the lawyers play the case out as if it was real, but in simulation? Or would they just try to figure out how that testimony might have been used in an actual court case? If the latter, I'd think they'd probably declare it material, since Judge Wright did point out several things that truthful testimony from Clinton might have proved.

Unfortunately for the validity of her case, the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that such fears were misplaced

Be that as it may, wouldn't working in fear be a hostile workplace environment? I mean, if a Playboy calendar can create a hostile workplace environment for women (even without any implication that the owner of that calendar treats his female employees differently from his male ones), I'd think that an unwelcome sexual advance (if it occured) could create one too. (Asking honest question, not disputing your expertise.)

Chaim Mattis Keller

Big Iron

09-16-1999, 03:03 PM

[[So basically, if (hypothetically) Starr decides to try and indict Clinton for perjury in the Jones case after Clinton leaves office, a judge would have to determine then whether or not his testimony was material?]] cmkeller

Yes.

[[Since the case got settled before ever coming to trial, how would they decide that? Would they make the lawyers play the case out as if it was real, but in simulation? Or would they just try to figure out how that testimony might have been used in an actual court case? If the latter, I'd think they'd probably declare it material, since Judge Wright did point out several things that truthful testimony from Clinton might have proved.]]

They would examine the issues in the case and the possible uses to which such testimony might have been put. Nice to get your opinion on the subject (chuckle), but the Judge's speculation that, under certain circumstances, the testimony MIGHT have been material hardly constitutes a strong statement that it was likely to be material. Collateral evidence (which the Lewinski evidence was at best) needs some foundation to be admitted.

[["Unfortunately for the validity of her case, the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that such fears were misplaced"

Be that as it may, wouldn't working in fear be a hostile workplace environment? ]]

No.

[[ I mean, if a Playboy calendar can create a hostile workplace environment for women (even without any implication that the owner of that calendar treats his female employees differently from his male ones), I'd think that an unwelcome sexual advance (if it occured) could create one too. (Asking honest question, not disputing your expertise.)]]

A nudie calendar or two is not enough to constitute a "hostile environment," i.e., an environment so offensive and hostile to women that it effective alters the terms and conditions of employment. The idea that it could is simply propaganda, largely emanating from those who never gave a fig about sexual harassment until they thought they could pin it on Wild Bill.