Dear Partisan scandalmeisters of America:

[wolfman]

From: the rest of America
Re: We don't fucking care anymore!

I remember back to the time when Reagan was in office and often called the teflon president because nothing stuck. Meaning that all the scandals and mud thrown at him didn't stick. In hindsight it wasn't that Reagan had anything special, it was that the American public had gotten tired of caring. And By now we are so disillusioned that we woudn't know how to care if we wanted too.



Clinton went to Oxford and smoked pot and we didn't care.

Clinton liked to whip it out and we didn't care.

Clinton did something fishy at White water and we didn't care.

Clinton may have killed what's his face and we didn't care.

Clinton lied under oath and we didn't care.

Clinton didn't know the meaning of is, and we didn't care.

Clinton liked coochie cigars and we didn't care.

Clinton stole furnature and we didn't care.

Mccain used the word Gook and we didn't care.

Bush snorted coke and we didn't care.

Bush had a DUI and we didn't care.

Bush went to Texas rather than Vietnam and we didn't care.

Bush went AWOL from the Reserve and we didn't care.

Bush said Nukulur and we didn't care.

Bush still had ties to Haliburton and we didn't care.

Bush looked dorky in a flight suit and we didn't care.

Bush may have lied to the US and the UN and we didn't care.

Schwartzenegger had a NAZI for a daddy and we didn't care.

Schwartzenegger grabbed some booty and we didn't care.

Schwartzenegger said Caleeforneea and we didn't care.

Schwarzenegger had a gang bang and we didn't care.

On the other hand

Bush Sr. had a bad econamy and we cared so his ass got booted .

Grey Davis had a bad economy so his ass got booted.

Bush Jr. has a bad economy......


Schwartzenegger has a bad economy...


So before we have to read three hundred stories about every time Arnie wears the wrong shoes with a shirt, eats his breakfast in the wrong order, or forgets to use a turn signal, think for a second. We didn't care about that shit are we gonna care about your new shit. If Arnie is the ass many claim, something with teeth and proof will surface. Do you really want to call us out to the fields for nothing? Cause every once in a while there really is a wolf, but we just don't have the fucking energy to care anymore thanks to you morons.

[World Eater]

Of course once something with "teeth and proof" comes up, we won't care.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by wolfman
Clinton lied under oath and we didn't care.

Clinton didn't know the meaning of is, and we didn't care.

Your premise is flawed. People cared (and amazingly still care) about these two. I don't know why, but they do.

[wolfman]

Your premise is flawed. People cared (and amazingly still care) about these two. I don't know why, but they do.

The partisan scandalmeisters care of course, but I don't think the people do.

[London_Calling]

I see this as a step in the right direction; Arnie doesn’t have any policies and he brings a higher quality of comprehension and diction to the job of lying to the US people than that to which we’ve become accustomed - I just can’t wait to see what scams, sorry, policies Warren Buffet implements.

That should keep Californians chuckling a while.

[smoke]

I thought Bush looked good in a flight suit. Nice presidential package.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Your premise is flawed. People cared (and amazingly still care) about these two. I don't know why, but they do. You don't know why some people may care that the President of the United States lied under oath?

[Shade]

I'm somewhat disturbed by the presence of 'went to oxford' on that list :) (No, I have nothing useful to add.)

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Hamlet
You don't know why some people may care that the President of the United States lied under oath?

Sorry, I didn't word that correctly. I meant that I don't know why some people still care about it to the degree that they do. I mean, shouldn't the situation have sunk in a bit by now to the point where every time someone brings up something shitty the current president did/has done, someone else doesn't have to say, "Oh yeah? Well, Clinton lied under oath! He also got a blow job from someone who was not his wife! Beat that!"

[ElvisL1ves]

And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim "He lied under oath!" can explain just what the lie was. That's perhaps less amazing, though, than the same people's explanations of how consensual sex is their damn business.

But the desperate need to be able to say "Well, the guy I've put so much faith in is at least not any worse than yours" trumps that.

[Weirddave]

I think why people don't care that Clinton "lied under oath" is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn't even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn't have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn't even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It's none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It's between him and his wife.

[Kaspar Hauser]

Originally posted by Weirddave
Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn't even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It's none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It's between him and his wife.

And the sheep, of course.

[MMI]

Originally posted by London_Calling
I see this as a step in the right direction; Arnie doesn’t have any policies and he brings a higher quality of comprehension and diction to the job of lying to the US people than that to which we’ve become accustomed - I just can’t wait to see what scams, sorry, policies Warren Buffet implements.

That should keep Californians chuckling a while.

Out of curiosity London_Calling is there a reason why you think that Warren Buffet would be a poor advisor or tend to promote schemes. I tend to think that he actually could be a reasonably good advisor (who will therefore be ignored). His one policy prescription before being gagged (rationalize California's property tax system) would be at least a step in the right direction.* He has always seemed very pragmatic from where I stand.





* in terms of closing the budget gap if you refuse to touch the biggest line items in the budget.

[Psycho Pirate]

Originally posted by wolfman
Bush snorted coke and we didn't care.

Cite?

[Gorgon Heap]

Oddly, I do actually agree with Weirddave about all that. I'm a little fuzzy on the purpose of the thread, however. We aren't "The United States of the Ambivalent," we're only accepting that high-profile people are still people and fuck up sometimes.

A lot of it is utter horseshit, and a lot of it can be very true. Politics is, unfortunately, very much a competition between individuals' characters, and the one with the best face come election day is going to win. Muckraking is just part of the plitical process.

Oh, yes and one more thing ...

Partisan scandalmeisters





Band name!!!

[Weirddave]

Originally posted by Gorgon Heap
Oddly, I do actually agree with Weirddave about all that.

And what's so odd about agreeing with me, huh? :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: ;)

[rjung]

Originally posted by Psycho Pirate
Originally posted by wolfman
Bush snorted coke and we didn't care.
Cite?
He's referring to pre-election incidents like this one (http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/1999/08/16/tomo/index.html) (satirized for your amusement)

[ElvisL1ves]

Cite for us not caring? Depends on who you ask. Many of us cared greatly - not about the coke use itself, though, but about his refusal to face it squarely with us. That showed a predilection for weaseling and coverups even when unnecessary that, sadly, has proven us right.

Oh, did you mean a cite for the coke use itself? His own refusal to deny it is enough. If he could have said "No" without fear of a witness emerging, he would have, right? That, combined with his campaign's series of replies to the question (which had been asked of, and answered by, every other candidate, mind you) with carefully-worded statements about when Bush would have been able to qualify for a security clearance are ample proof. Certainly it isn't reasonable to think otherwise after that, is it?

Did you miss all that at the time? What news sources were you using?

[UncleBeer]

It's none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It's between him and his wife.
Well, while the acts themselves are properly no concern of the public, it does demonstrate the man's lack of judgment which most certainly does have a bearing on how one might expect him to perform his presidential duties.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by smoke
I thought Bush looked good in a flight suit. Nice presidential package.

I can't believe you looked! Ew.

Oh, and UncleBeer: *yawn* Trot it out again, why don't you? Care to take a look at just how many of our former leaders (and plenty of other admirable men and women besides) have been up to the same kind of business as Clinton was? Clinton's sexual proclivities have nothing to do with his judgment as a President. Not do Bush's, Schwarzenegger's, or anyone else's.

[Lord Ashtar]

I think what UncleBeer is going toward is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) no other president lied under oath about it.

[Siege]

As far as I'm concerned, Reagan lied to the American public during Iran-Contra (I never did buy how bad his memory was), and Bush Sr. with his "Read my lips: No new taxes" was either a liar or a fool. The current incumbent seems to have lied about the infamous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At this point, it'll be news to me when a top-level politician doesn't lie to the American, be he Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian.

I swear I'm wearing my "Just once I'd like to vote for the greater of two goods" button next time I vote.

CJK

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
I think what UncleBeer is going toward is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) no other president lied under oath about it.

Then he should have said that.

Siege: where did you get that button? I want one too.

[Cerri]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Cite for us not caring? Depends on who you ask. Many of us cared greatly - not about the coke use itself, though, but about his refusal to face it squarely with us. That showed a predilection for weaseling and coverups even when unnecessary that, sadly, has proven us right.


To play devil's advocate, perhaps he avoided answering the question because he and every other politician today knows inherently well how badly they get crucified by partisan scandalmeisters by dredging up stupid irrelevant shit they did 20 years ago that has zero to do with their ability to govern?

Maybe it does show a prediliction for weasely behavior...or maybe it's just knowing full well the politician has nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting to having human foibles and being a dumbass kid who experimented with things that weren't necessarily smart choices, just like 99.9% of us were.

Clinton smoked pot (even though he allegedly didn't inhale) and admitted it...see how far that got him?

[Miller]

What I never understood was why people seemed to be surprised that Clinton lied under oath. He's a politician. That's his job.

[ElvisL1ves]

UncleBeer, even granting your premise (generously), that information was weighed and decided upon by We the People on Election Day. Twice.

But did you guys accept that? No, that would require some sense of responsibility.

Cerri, you may be right about Bush's, er, Rove's motivations. The comment was directed toward those willfully-ignorant souls who don't think the past incidents ever even happened - they certainly have not weighed and judged its significance.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Cite for us not caring? Depends on who you ask. Many of us cared greatly - not about the coke use itself, though, but about his refusal to face it squarely with us. That showed a predilection for weaseling and coverups even when unnecessary that, sadly, has proven us right.

Oh, did you mean a cite for the coke use itself? His own refusal to deny it is enough. If he could have said "No" without fear of a witness emerging, he would have, right? That, combined with his campaign's series of replies to the question (which had been asked of, and answered by, every other candidate, mind you) with carefully-worded statements about when Bush would have been able to qualify for a security clearance are ample proof. Certainly it isn't reasonable to think otherwise after that, is it?

Did you miss all that at the time? What news sources were you using?


"Spock, what does that mean?"


"Just a moment Captain, I will run it through my tricorder."

"Hurry man!"

"It appears Captain, that there will not actually be a cite forthcoming."

[Blassie]

Average American: Ya know, my guess is the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Psycho Pirate: Cite?

Average American: Hey look at the eastern sky. There's good ol' Mr. Sun.

Psycho Pirate: So I guess there will not be a cite forthcoming?

Would it help if I went to my sister's home page, wrote "Bush Jr. Did Coke" with a nifty graphic, and posted a link to that very home page in this post? Would that be satisfactory? Hmmmmm?

Whoa.

Sorry. These "cite?" idiots get me every time.

If Its On The Internet - It Must Be True!

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Blassie
Average American: Ya know, my guess is the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Psycho Pirate: Cite?

Average American: Hey look at the eastern sky. There's good ol' Mr. Sun.

Psycho Pirate: So I guess there will not be a cite forthcoming?

Would it help if I went to my sister's home page, wrote "Bush Jr. Did Coke" with a nifty graphic, and posted a link to that very home page in this post? Would that be satisfactory? Hmmmmm?

Whoa.

Sorry. These "cite?" idiots get me every time.

If Its On The Internet - It Must Be True!

Wha -- ?

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Shade
I'm somewhat disturbed by the presence of 'went to oxford' on that list :) (No, I have nothing useful to add.) Surely as a Cambrian you should understand that! (Me being an Oxonian, I'd feel the same way if he'd have gone to Cambridge ;)).

[Earthworm Jim]

Originally posted by Blassie
Would it help if I went to my sister's home page, wrote "Bush Jr. Did Coke" with a nifty graphic, and posted a link to that very home page in this post? Would that be satisfactory?

Sorry. These "cite?" idiots get me every time.

If Its On The Internet - It Must Be True!

I do not think [cite] means what you think it means...

[ElvisL1ves]

It wasn't Psycho Pirate who said that, Blassie - but the scorn is appropriate anyway.

[Brutus]

Jimmy cracked corn, and we didn't care.

[Shade]

Originally posted by jjimm
Surely as a Cambrian you should understand that! (Me being an Oxonian, I'd feel the same way if he'd have gone to Cambridge ;)). Perhaps 'surprised' would be better - I didn't realise other people knew this :D

[Gorgon Heap]

Weirddave, just saying we haven't agreed on a whole lot over the years besides being stuck on the subway with [/b]Superdude[/b] being a new kind of Hell.

[UncleBeer]

I think what UncleBeer is going toward is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) no other president lied under oath about it.
No, actually I wasn't trying to go anywhere. Except to say that there is legitimate reason to doubt the man's judgment skills. While others obviously disagree, I think his lack of judgment displayed in one area can be reasonably expected to demonstrate a "global" trait.

UncleBeer, even granting your premise (generously), that information was weighed and decided upon by We the People on Election Day. Twice.

But did you guys accept that? No, that would require some sense of responsibility.
No shit, dumbfuck. However, I did accept it when it happened—I didn't try to impeach the guy. It's you assholes that keep insisting that Bush isn't the president now that seem to have problems accepting reality. Maybe you can use the same low tactic on Bush II the 'Pubbies used against Gray in California.

[Liberal]

And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim "He lied under oath!" can explain just what the lie was.He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

[Psycho Pirate]

Scorn if you must, but the fact that nobody can provide any proof, any evidence, anything other than an implication that George W. Bush did cocaine speaks volumes.

Let's say I said, 'Bill Clinton eats babies.' Now, Bill Clinton could say, "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response." So he didn't deny it outright. Does that make it true?

I've just never understood the accusation that George W. Bush did cocaine. I mean, if you want to use ammunition against the guy, he had a bit of a drinking problem. Isn't that enough without making stuff up?

It appears that many merely want to believe that he did cocaine. So in this case, these individuals aren't going to let facts (or a distinct lack thereof) get in the way of their desire to believe something.

Blassie, feel free to relabel "A Treatment" as "A Strawman". Comparing a proven, observable fact with a non-proven, partisan accusation is unfair at best.

[ElvisL1ves]

"the fact that nobody can provide any proof, any evidence, anything other than an implication that George W. Bush did cocaine speaks volumes." How many volumes does his refusal to deny it speak, Blinkerboy? You're also not getting the implication of his usage - it isn't about that, and not entirely about his weaseling, but about the partisan hypocrisy of people like you, who willingly ignored it but who were willing to scrutinize and condemn Clinton for a single toke. You want moral credibility, you gotta earn it.

Lib, read a little more closely.

UncleBeer, did you oppose the impeachment? Or the years-long search for something to get him for? No? Then it would be wise to shut up now. Just to clarify a point you're still having trouble with: Clinton was elected legitimately, and twice. Bush was neither. Yes, that matters - it's called "democracy". If that was too complicated for you, please say so and there will be a lot of people glad to help explain it for you.

[Liberal]

Lib, read a little more closely.Okay, I'll try again...

And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim "He lied under oath!" can explain just what the lie was.[...reading carefully...]

Okay, my response:

He lied about whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

What did I miss?

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
No, actually I wasn't trying to go anywhere. Except to say that there is legitimate reason to doubt the man's judgment skills. While others obviously disagree, I think his lack of judgment displayed in one area can be reasonably expected to demonstrate a "global" trait.

Then I owe you an apology. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry.

[Spiff]

Originally posted by Psycho Pirate
It appears that many merely want to believe that he did cocaine. So in this case, these individuals aren't going to let facts (or a distinct lack thereof) get in the way of their desire to believe something.You are right in that there is not a "smoking gun" in regards to Bush's cocaine use.

But, to put it in lawyer's terms, there is a very good case to be made with the abundant amount of circumstantial evidence available. Again, in legal terms, building a case based on circumstantial evidence is less desirable than having a dozen eyewitnesses, fingerprints on the coke spoon, etc.

But plenty of circumstantial cases have led to convictions in courts of law.

So, I think it's disingenuous to say that there are people who merely want to believe that Bush did cocaine. There are plenty of people who have looked at the circumstantial evidence and reached a defendable conclusion, not just a 'belief."

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Spiff
So, I think it's disingenuous to say that there are people who merely want to believe that Bush did cocaine. There are plenty of people who have looked at the circumstantial evidence and reached a defendable conclusion, not just a 'belief."

Are you willing to provide some of this circumstantial evidence?

[Psycho Pirate]

ElvisL1ves
Blinkerboy? Blinkerboy?

Anyway, where does the burden of proof lie in this situation? Let's look at the legal definition.

Burden of proof: the duty of proving a particular position in a court of law, a failure in the performance of which duty calls for judgment against the party on whom the duty is imposed.

Now, although the accusation did not take place in a court of law, the concept still applies. It is not George W. Bush's responsiblity to provide proof that he is innocent, it is the responsibity of those bringing up the accusation to provide proof that he is guilty. To simplify it even further, this is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

If he said, "I want to address the accusations against me regarding my alleged use of cocaine. Let it be known that I did not use cocaine." Would that 'prove' that he didn't use cocaine. Of course not. Neither does his refusal to deny the accusation 'prove' that he did use cocaine. The facts are not known. Although I concede that his refusal to deny the accusation outright could be construed as suspicious, I view those who keep bringing up the accusation as though it were the truth as equally suspicious.

And thanks for labeling me as a partisan hypocrite. As the boys on the playground say, "Takes one to know one".

Spiff
It was not my intention to characterize any defendable conclusions as a 'belief' to be dismissed out of hand. However, could you point me towards the circumstantial evidence available regarding George W. Bush's alleged cocaine use?

[Derleth]

Originally posted by Brutus
Jimmy cracked corn, and we didn't care. No, Jimmy grew pignuts.

But more people cared about his brother.

[ElvisL1ves]

PP, if he could have said "No", he certainly would have. Do the math, Blinkerboy.

Lib, read the transcript and point out the lie. Or did you just swallow that particular meme whole, without examination? That's not what we're about here, d00d.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
And it still amazes me how few people who so indignantly proclaim "He lied under oath!" can explain just what the lie was. That's perhaps less amazing, though, than the same people's explanations of how consensual sex is their damn business. I really don't want to get into the whole Clinton thing again. That horse isn't just dead, it's been buried, eaten by maggots, further digested by bacteria, and released back to the soil, where it helps ferns grow. And, for the record, Lib is correct.Originally posted by Weirddave
I think why people don't care that Clinton "lied under oath" is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn't even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn't have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn't even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It's none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It's between him and his wife.I'm not a partisan, nor a muckraker, and I continue to be upset when people say it was nobody's business, when the court that was at issue said, rightly so I might add, that IT DID MATTER. It wasn't about whether or not he cheated on his wife, it was about his penchant for sexual relations with his subordinates. Originally posted by Avalonian
Oh, and UncleBeer: *yawn* Trot it out again, why don't you? Care to take a look at just how many of our former leaders (and plenty of other admirable men and women besides) have been up to the same kind of business as Clinton was? Clinton's sexual proclivities have nothing to do with his judgment as a President. Not do Bush's, Schwarzenegger's, or anyone else's.By "same kind of business" you mean lying under oath? I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that Bush or Schwarzenegger did that. Why must anybody who gives a shit that a standing president lied under oath, be seen as obsessed with his sexual proclivities? To me, it didn't matter that he was cheating on his wife, but it certainly does matter when he lies under oath to cover it up.

[Spiff]

When Bush was running for President in August 1999, the press began questioning him about his past cocaine use.

Why did they choose to do this? I don't know, but I can imagine it was because it there were rumors surfacing about the coke snorting, and perhaps some of those rumors were propagated by one or more of the other candidates in the race, both Democrats and Republicans.

Anyway, the press (being fair, and all ...) asked every other major candidate the same questions about past drug use. Gore and some other candidates admitted to past pot smoking. Other candidates said that they had no past illegal drug use at all.

Bush only said this (and he said it over and over again whenever the illegal drug question arose):"I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes. I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honor to the office." (Above quote is from this CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/23/president.2000/candidates.bush/index.html) story.)

Bush's line was always that what he did or did not injest 25+ years ago is off limits and he would not respond to any reporter questions other than reciting his mantra (quoted above).

However, I did find this, from an interview with a New Hampshire TV station:"I'm not going to talk about what I did as a child. What I am going to talk about -- and I am going to say this consistently -- [is that] it is irrelevant what I did 20 to 30 years ago. What's relevant is that I have learned from any mistakes I made. I do not want to send signals to anybody that what Gov. Bush did 30 years ago is cool to try."(Underlining mine. Found the above quote in a Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/04/09/bush/index.html) article.)

Hmmm ... In an interview about illegal drug use, Bush admits that he did some uncool stuff. Wonder what that was?

Anyway, your point is well taken, Psycho Pirate, and I don't claim that I have enough proof to convict Bush in a court of law. But when he repeatedly states that whatever he did 25+ years ago re illegal drug use is not fair game and that he will not "dignify" such questions with a response, I can reach a very defendable conclusion.

And I conclude that Bush used illegal drugs when he was a young Texas buck shipped off to college at an Ivy League school where cocaine was very popular.

I mean, c'mon, why else would he be weaseling out of answering the question, especially at the time during the campaign when his dodging of the question was doing very serious damage to his efforts and he had everything to gain by issuing a very clear statement on the matter?

[Psycho Pirate]

ElvisL1ves
If he had said no, would you have believed him? How does his saying 'no' prove that he indeed didn't use cocaine? How does his refusal to say no prove that he did use cocaine? See my point? Care to address that point, or would you rather stick to name-calling and blind allegiance to your point of view? If you choose the latter, then why frequent a board dedicated to fighting ignorance and go around spreading your own?

Spiff
Your point is also well taken. I certainly won't deny that Bush's refusal to answer the question directly is suspicious. It's downright frustrating, in fact. And you can certainly draw the conclusion that he did indeed use illegal drugs.

It just bugs me when people put out as fact "Bush used cocaine" when they don't know for a fact that he did. Like I said earlier, there is plenty to nail the man to the wall against if that is your wont without turning to any unproven offenses.

[Weirddave]

Originally posted by Hamlet
.I'm not a partisan, nor a muckraker, and I continue to be upset when people say it was nobody's business, when the court that was at issue said, rightly so I might add, that IT DID MATTER. It wasn't about whether or not he cheated on his wife, it was about his penchant for sexual relations with his subordinates.

Fine, you care. All I said was I, and I think a great many other people, don't. We don't care weather he fucked or fingered Monica, we don't care that he lied to a partisan abuse of the judicial system. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
PP, if he could have said "No", he certainly would have. Do the math, Blinkerboy.



You haven't denied being a pedophile, a murderer, and embezzler, or any of a 100 other things.

"You are guilty of what you fail to deny," is an interesting standard.

I see that Libertarian has not denied swallowing a Meme, nor has he denied goat rape and gerbilcide.

::Looks at Libertarian. ::


I kind of like this standard. The fun part will be when they do deny it and we can claim they're in denial.


Did you get this standard from Slander for Dummies or what?

[Spavined Gelding]

If anything should be apparent it is that a fair number of people on these boards do care, and care very much, about how this country is governed. We would not be here if we didn't. Admittedly some of the items in the litany that started this thread are inconsequential and some are irrelevant, but to the extent they have anything to do with the government of the country we care about it. The scandal mongering has gotten out of hand at times but partisan scandal mongering is an integral part of popular politics (as opposed to practical politics where the critical question is "how can I use you to active my goals").

Without a good slanderous rumor it is sometimes difficult to get the attention of the great mass of people who have little interest in the nuts and bolts of federal and state economic policy, foreign affairs or judicial administration. You need a good juicy sex scandal or a failed attempt to do the old state house two step to attract the attention of the congenitally disinterested and the perpetually jaded..

Scandal is what the partisan rangers use to beat their opponents about the head and shoulders when there is no substantive issue like a flat economy or a foreign affairs debacle. Thus there is no need to exhume rumors about President Bush but plenty of reason to have gone in search of dirt on President Clinton. When your job assembling refrigerators packs up and moves to Mexico or China you do not need a Presidential sex scandal to focus your attention. When your kid's high school football coach is off on an eighteen month active duty tour with his reserve unit you tend not to place the President"s recreational phamicuticals very high on your list of priorities.

[Liberal]

Elvis

Lib, read the transcript and point out the lie. Or did you just swallow that particular meme whole, without examination? That's not what we're about here, d00d.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
No. LR-C-94-290
PAULA CORBIN JONES,
Plaintiff
vs.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
and DANNY FERGUSON,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/wrightsorder13.html)

On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, time frame stat 66, 78.(13) Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he "misled people" because, among other things, the questions posed to him "were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed." Although there are a number of aspects of the President's conduct in this case that might be characterized as contemptuous, the Court addresses at this time only those matters which no reasonable person would seriously dispute were in violation of this Court's discovery Orders and which do not require a hearing, namely the President's sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinskyd00d!

[ElvisL1ves]

Superscyllious, I've never been asked those questions. Bush, along with all the candidates, was asked. All the others said either "No" or "Yes, and here's the circumstances ..." Capisce, signore?

Now, please explain who you're trying to convince and of what, or if you've even thought about that beyond a purely visceral level. Your increasingly indignant denials of what almost everyone else can see has been comical, but is also becoming quite boring. Is it really that enraging to you that there are people here who see you for what you are?

Blinkerboy, what I would have thought if he'd asnwered "No" is irrelevant because the situation isn't factual. But, since this is apparently important to you, yes, I would have believed him. Not because he's trustworthy; we know otherwise; but because he and Rove would have known that at least one of his party pals would be expected to emerge and say otherwise.

The fact, though, is that he refused to give a straight answer, and so did his campaign. There is no reasonable way to infer any possible reason but one. That is a sufficient argument to convict in court, since you bring that up. Capisce, signore?

Lib, you're quoting someone else's opinion, even if she's a judge. You're not stating the facts. We have a higher standard here, even in the Pit. Now, what lie did he tell under oath? Chapter and verse, please. And the judge won't help; she didn't either. Note, too, that the statement you're quoting came well after the impeachment farce, when the meme you've swallowed had already made its rounds.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Lib, you're quoting someone else's opinion, even if she's a judge. You're not stating the facts. We have a higher standard here, even in the Pit. Now, what lie did he tell under oath? Chapter and verse, please. And the judge won't help; she didn't either. Note, too, that the statement you're quoting came well after the impeachment farce, when the meme you've swallowed had already made its rounds. You're kidding, right? I know it must be tough for someone of your obvious intellect to, oh, I don't know, READ THE ENTIRE OPINION, that Lib so kindly presented you. Using that index finger to click your mouse on the link, then to scroll down were probably too much for you. Add to that the problem of actually reading the provided information and, even tougher for you, actually understanding those words, and it was probably too much for you. I understand, it's tough wanting to wallow in your ignorance.

Just to make it even easier on you, the Judge laid out the following:
At his January 17th deposition, the President responded to a series of questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together by maintaining that he could not recall being alone with her. The President testified as follows:
Q: Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?
A: I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She -- it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.
Q: So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?
A: Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.
Q: Do you ever recall walking with Monica Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to your private kitchen there in the White House?
A: ... [M]y recollection is that, that at some point during the government shutdown, when Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern but was working the chief staff's office because all the employees had to go home, that she was back there with a pizza that she brought to me and to others. I do not believe she was there alone, however. I don't think she was. And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after that she was there but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her. She and Betty are friends. That's my, that's my recollection. And I have no other recollection of that.
Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and this kitchen area?
A: I don't believe so, unless we were walking back to the back dining room with the pizza. I just, I don't remember. I don't believe we were alone in the hallway, no.
Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House?
A: I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is -- I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's -- I have a general memory of that.
Pres. Depo. at 52-53, 56-59.


At his August 17th appearance before the grand jury, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging that he had
indeed been alone with Ms. Lewinsky on a number of occasions during which they engaged in "inappropriate intimate contact."

Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10.
He stated he also was alone with her "from time to time" when there was no "improper contact" occurring. Id. at 134. The President began his testimony by reading a statement which reads in part as follows:
When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, 1 engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. Id. at 9-10.
The President then testified as follows in response to questions regarding whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together:
Q: Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicate in your statement that you were alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky
A: Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know for sure. But if you would like me to give an educated giless, I will do that, but I do not know for sure. And I will tell you what I think, based on what I remember. But I can't be held to a specific time, because I don't have records of all of it.
Q: How many times do you think?
A: Well, there are two different periods here. There's the period when she worked in the White House until April of '96. And then there's the period when she came back to visit me from February of '97 until late December '97. Based on our records - let's start with the records, where we have the best records and the closest in time. Based on our records, between February and December, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times. Although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times, at least it could have happened. There were -- we think there were nine or 10 times when she was in, in the White House when I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen her. I do not believe I saw her that many times, but I could have. ... I remember specifically, I have a specific recollection of two times. I don't remember when they were, but I remember twice when, on Sunday afternoon, she brought papers down to me, stayed, and we were alone. And I am frankly quite sure -- although I have no specific memory, I am quite sure there were a couple of more times, probably two times more, three times more. That's what I would say. That's what I can remember. But I do not remember when they were, or at what time of day they were, or what the facts were. But I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996, when she worked there.
Id. at 30-32.
In addition, the President recalled a specific meeting on December 28, 1997, less than three weeks prior to his January 17th deposition, at which he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone together. Id. at 34.

The President went on to acknowledge that he tried to conceal his "inappropriate intimate relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky by not telling anyone about the relationship and by "do[ing] it where nobody else was looking at it," stating that he would have to be an "exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone else."
Id. at 38, 54.
The President testified as follows in response to a question regarding how many times that occurred:
Well, if you go back to my statement, I remember there were a few times in '96, I can't say with any certainty. There was once in early '97. After she left the White House, I do not believe I ever had any inappropriate contact with her in the rest of '96. There was one occasion in '97 when, regrettably, that we were alone together for a few minutes, I think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate contact. And after that, to the best of my memory and belief, it did not occur again.
Id. at 38-3 9.

ii.
With respect to whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had engaged in sexual relations, the President testified at his January 17th deposition as follows:
Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?
A: No.
Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A: It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.
Q: I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?
Mr. Bennett: I object because I don't know that he can remember --
The Court: Well, it's real short. He can -- I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one.
A: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her. Pres. Depo. at 78.
The President confirmed these denials in response to questioning from his attorney regarding Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and whether he and Ms. Lewinsky ever had a "sexual relationship":
Q: In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this, "I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship." Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?
A: That is absolutely true. Id. at 204.

Consistent with his denial at his deposition of a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President had earlier answered "None" in response to plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 10, which stated as follows:

Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were] President of the United States.

See Pres. Clinton's Resp. to P1's Second Set of Int. at 5; Pres. Clinton's Supp. Resp. to P1.'s Second Set of Int. at 2. As previously noted, this interrogatory was answered without regard to a formal definition of the term "sexual relations" after this Court had entered its December 11th Order ruling that plaintiff was entitled to such information.

At his August 17th grand jury appearance, the President directly contradicted his deposition testimony by acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky on numerous occasions. Pres. GJ Test. at 9-10, 38-39, 54.

When asked by a grand juror what he meant by
"inappropriate contact," the President stated, "What I meant was, and what they can infer that I meant was, that I did things that were -- when I was alone with her, that were inappropriate and wrong."
Id. at 92-93.
The President repeatedly refused to provide answers to questions regarding specific sexual activity between himself and Ms. Lewinsky, instead referring to his statement acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact" and stating that "sexual relations" as defined by himself and "most ordinary Americans" means, for the most part, only intercourse.
Id. at 12, 22-24, 92-94, 102-03, 110-11, 139, 168. Nevertheless, the President, while claiming that he did not engage in intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky and did not engage in any other contact with her that would fall within the definition of "sexual relations" used at his deposition, acknowledged that the nature of his "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky was such that he would have been an "exhibitionist" had it been viewed by others.
Id. at 10, 12, 54, 96.
The President went on to state that he did not believe he violated the definition of sexual relations he was given "by directly touching those parts of her body with the intent to arouse or gratify."
Id. at 139, 168.

The Court went on to say: It is difficult to construe the President's sworn statements in this civil
lawsuit concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as anything other than
a willful refusal to obey this Court's discovery Orders. Given the President's
admission that he was misleading with regard to the questions being posed to
him and the clarity with which his falsehoods are revealed by the record,
(15) there is no need to engage in an extended analysis of the President's
sworn statements in this lawsuit. Simply put, the President's deposition
testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was
intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged
in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false,
notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term "sexual
relations."

As Lib showed, you can lead Elvis to information, but you can't make him comprehend.

[ElvisL1ves]

But did you include the definition he was required to use (and not the "most ordinary Americans" standard presented here), as I already challenged? You did not. The "tortured definitions and interpretations" referred to here are the plaintiff's. Go back and look, sonny.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
But did you include the definition he was required to use (and not the "most ordinary Americans" standard presented here), as I already challenged? You did not. The "tortured definitions and interpretations" referred to here are the plaintiff's. Go back and look, sonny. With the possible exception of Aldebaran and Milum, you could be the best example of a poster who not only remains ignorant, but wallows in it, who wears it as a batch of pride, takes it to dinner, and makes sweet love to it every night.

[Jodi]

ELVIS, you are deeply confused. The "tortured definitions" in question were Clinton's.

Surely you can see that it would not be in a plaintiff's interest to introduce alternate definitions for plain-English terms like "sex" and "sexual relations." That would lead to a transcript that appears to say one thing -- "I did not have sex with her" -- but really doesn't, because "sex" is defined as involving, say, two cans of whipped cream and a miniature pony, and because it wasn't that, it wasn't "sex."

It is the defendant who will always want to say that words and phrases don't really mean what God, the universe, and everyone thinks they mean, because then he (or she) can contend they didn't say what they appear to have said. Clinton took this tactic to such an extreme that it led to the now-famous exchange in which he asked to have the term "is" defined for him, contending that, eh, "is" could mean "is," or, apparently, it could mean something else.

He denied having sexual relations with her under oath. He admitted having sexual relations with her on national TV. More to the point, he has never since ever denied that he had sexual relations with her. His explanation is that, gee, he didn't know at the time of the deposition that "sex" and "sexual relations" would include the "inappropriate intimate contact" (i.e., a blowjob) he admitted to the grand jury.

The court correctly found that this explanation was not credible from a man of his stature (the president), intelligence (a Rhodes scholar, for God's sake), and profession (a lawyer).

I don't give a shit about what he did to whom. He's out of office now and largely irrelevant. But willfully sticking your head up your ass on the issue of whether he in fact lied does not make you look very smart.

Did he lie under oath? Yes he did. I'm sorry, but there it is. He just did. You can certainly still consider him to be a good person and the greatest leader in the history of civilization if you choose, and you can even excuse the lie(s) as minor missteps ("mistakes were made") but the uncontestable fact of it is something you really need to choke down. Seriously, man; get over it.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Weirddave
I think why people don't care that Clinton "lied under oath" is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn't even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn't have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. Speaking for myself, I could care less if Clinton ( or Bush ) fucked sheep daily in the Oval Office. I wouldn't even care if there was a video of him doing so aired on CNN and then he denied it under oath. It's none of our business, and has no bearing on how he does his job (being President ). It's between him and his wife.

A-fucking-men, brother!

[Psycho Pirate]

Originally posted by ElvisDiedOnTheToilet
The fact, though, is that he refused to give a straight answer, and so did his campaign.
There is no reasonable way to infer any possible reason but one. That is a sufficient argument to convict in court, since you bring that up. Capisce, signore?
I'd hate to be tried in such a courtroom.

PROSECUTOR: Do you deny that you killed that man?

PSYCHO PIRATE: I refuse to answer that question.

PROSECUTOR: Aha! But you don't deny that you killed that man?

PSYCHO PIRATE: No, I neither confirm nor deny your accusation. Do you have any proof?

PROSECUTOR: I need no proof in this court. Your refusal to answer is your confession.

PSYCHO PIRATE: Wha? Ever heard of the 5th amendment?

PROSECUTOR [foaming at the mouth]: GUILTY! TAKE HIM AWAY!

[Patrons assembled in their powdered Elvis wigs and decayed sequined suits]: BULLY! BULLY!

:rolleyes:

[Measure for Measure]

Nice Cite Lib. I didn't see the word "lie" in it however. There's a reason for that.

Nobody here has so far asserted that Clinton committed perjury. My take has been that the case for that has not been demonstrably shown, given the court's pre-existing (and tortured) definition of sex.

Given that definition (in fact) I'd say that Clinton did not lie per se insofar as his statement was strictly speaking accurate according to the definition provided in court. He did, however, lie to the public when he stated on TV that he didn't have sex with "that women", the public not being privy to the bizarre defintion of sex set forth.

OTOH, the "contempt of court" bit is another matter entirely; it seems fair to me to characterize Clinton's statements as, "... misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. "
Weakness in my argument: the judge actually said "false, misleading and evasive", emphasis added. Just so you know.

[Miller]

I've been reading Al Franken's new book, and just read his take on the Bush cocaine allegations. Allow me to quote briefly.

"At first during the campaign Bush refused principle to answer questions about cocaine. Then, because he was applying for a federal job (president) he had to fill out a form that asked if he had used illegal drugs in the past seven years. Bush voluntarily told the press he was able to answer no.

"A clever reporter asked whether he could have given the same answer when his father was president and federal forms asked about drug use for the prior fifteen years."

"Uh, let's see here... Yes, I could have," Bush said after a pause. The, when asked again if he had ever used cocaine, Bush refused to give an answer."

Might not be enough for a court of law, but it's enough to convince me. However, lest this be marked up to liberal bias, I hasten to add that the fact that Bush may have done a whole mess of coke at some point in his life is the only thing I like about the chimp.

[Liberal]

Weirddave

I think why people don't care that Clinton "lied under oath" is that most Americans see what he lied about as a completely personal matter that he shouldn't even have been questioned under oath about, and wouldn't have been, if not for muckrakers putting partisan politics before anything else. I see your point, and ordinarily, I would agree with you.

However, in this particular case, the judge had ruled on two separate occasions that the plaintiff had a right to know whether the president had sex with a state or federal employee. The information was pertinent to the case at hand. The case was about sexual harassment.

Clinton was aware of the judge's two rulings and, as the judge said, deliberately gave false and misleading testimony in order to obstruct justice. That's why she held him in contempt of court.

-----

Flowbark

American Heritage defines "lie" as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood" and "Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Clinton lied.

[ElvisL1ves]

Jodi, a lawyer (and you do claim to be one, right? On what basis?) should know better than to offer such ignorance not based on fact. But it must be fought wherever it appears. The first Google hit (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html)During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones’ lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." Given the absolute need for exactness in a legal definition, which I hope you will not brush aside in your eagerness to see a man you hate get caught in something, note that none of the definitions include getting blown. Unfortunately for what you'd like to have had him say, while he was certainly and understandably evasive, he didn't actually lie. If the Scaife attorneys wanted that to be included in their definition, they could have done so. But they didn't, and it isn't the defendants' responsibility to help hang himself, ya know.

Gee, that took me a whole minute, from the search to the post. I hope you take a little more care with the facts with your real clients, Counselor.

[Jodi]

ELVIS --

Jodi, a lawyer (and you do claim to be one, right? On what basis?) should know better than to offer such ignorance not based on fact. But it must be fought wherever it appears. The first Google hit --

I claim to be a lawyer based on the fact that I am by profession a lawyer, licensed to practice in three jurisdictions and actively practicing law. On what basis do you claim to have a brain in your head? It would be helpful, for purposes of this discussion if you would actually read the definition you post. Here, let me highlight the important part for you:

During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones’ lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining how one can be on the receiving end of a blowjob without having contact between oneself ("the person") and "any part of another person's body" -- specifically, their mouth.

Given the absolute need for exactness in a legal definition, which I hope you will not brush aside in your eagerness to see a man you hate get caught in something, note that none of the definitions include getting blown.

Incorrect, my dense friend. Read the definition again. And I don't hate the man, for what it's worth -- though it may appear that way to someone whose lips are glued to the ex-president's butt, as yours are -- I just don't respect lawyer who lie under oath.

Unfortunately for what you'd like to have had him say, while he was certainly and understandably evasive, he didn't actually lie.

Having pointed out that under the defintion used at the deposition and in the judgment of the federal judge, he did, as a matter of fact, lie, would you like to take another shot at explaining how he didn't? Note that it would be helpful if your read and understand the things you find before you actually post them.

Gee, that took me a whole minute, from the search to the post. I hope you take a little more care with the facts with your real clients, Counselor.

Nope, same degree of care, but then I don't just find things, I also actually read them and understand them, or if I find I can't understand them, I don't use them. Now, I don't know what you do for a living, but I certainly hope it doesn't call for a high degree of reading comprehension.

[lucwarm]

For what it's worth, the linked site indicates that the part of the definition that Jodi made use of was dropped by the Court.

Nevertheless, reading the Court's opinion, it is certainly clear that Clinton's conduct was sufficient to merit sanctions and/or professional discipline.

[Measure for Measure]

Lib: "American Heritage defines "lie" as [1]"A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood" and [2]"Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Numbers added by flowbark.

I must say that these are rather to-the-point cites, Lib, which I like.

Anyway, by definition #1, I see no evidence that Clinton lied, since the Court defined "Sexual Relations" as ,"1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; " and receiving oral sex doesn't fall within those parameters. *

I'm just trying to make myself clear.

--
There is also (however) the matter of, "Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Oh yes, Clinton did that. I maintain that while calling such statements "lies" is accurate (as in "Statistics can lie", to use the example from my Webster's New World Dictionary) it is also misleading, as it can cause the listener to believe that you are saying that Clinton did #1 (false statements) when in fact he did #2 (misleading statements).

In short, it would be better to say** that "Clinton gave deliberately misleading testimony".

(BTW, I'll be offline for the next 24 hours or so.)
---
* The question then becomes whether Clinton touched Lewinsky in certain areas though.

** i.e. "it would be "less misleading to say"....
---

lucwarm is correct. Definitions 2 and 3 were dropped by the court, leaving definition 1.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by flowbark
Lib: "American Heritage defines "lie" as [1]"A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood" and [2]"Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Numbers added by flowbark.

I must say that these are rather to-the-point cites, Lib, which I like.

Anyway, by definition #1, I see no evidence that Clinton lied, since the Court defined "Sexual Relations" as ,"1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; " and receiving oral sex doesn't fall within those parameters. *

I'm just trying to make myself clear.

It seems to me that he pretty clearly lied in his testimony about whether he was ever alone with Monica.

Also, it seems pretty clear that his interrogatory answer was a lie. (Note that interrogatories are, in theory, signed under oath)

lucwarm is correct.

Music to my ears :D

[Liberal]

Flowbark

Admittedly, I'm old now, and not as agile with my imagination as I used to be, but I'm not sure how one receives oral sex without making "contact with the genitalia". Are you positing that the head of his genitalia just sort of floated around the empty space inside Monica's mouth without ever actually making contact?

[ElvisL1ves]

Jodi, the definition provided by the Scaife/Klayman (left him out originally, sorry) lawyers includes giving a blowjob, but not getting one. Believe it or not. Clinton was not at any time accused of blowing Monica. This subject was, in fact, very thoroughly reported at the time, but perhaps not in the partisanly-filtered news sources you apparently use exclusively, even now.

The tortured definition, btw, was in fact provided by the plaintiff's lawyers, as I said originally and which you hotly and dismissively denied, thereby ruining whatever credibility as a lawyer you might have brought to this conversation. Now tell me more about how you carefully read stuff. If you like getting laughs, that is.

I'll leave out how you're ignoring, for reasons that doubtless seem good to you but are still clear to the unblinkered, the propriety of filing a groundless suit in the first place, or of a judge letting it do maximum damage to a plaintiff's reputation before even starting to consider if there is any merit to the actual basis of the charge. That, too, seems to have escaped your attention both then and now, "Counselor".

Gang, I already provided a cite, and it was just the first of many Google hits. You can do your own reading and thinking, and not depend on the opinion of a Republican judge whose mishandling of the case lets one think her ruling as above was simple ass-covering. Now take all your ostensible "gotcha's" and carefully insert them in the orifice of your choosing.

[Xploder]

Hey Elvis, are you EVER gonna take your head out of your ass long enough to read this thread through and realize that you're wrong? If so, it'll be the first time I've ever seen you do so on these boards.

What a fucking idiot.

[Conflict of Interest]

So you are saying the blowjob don't count as a sex act. well what about the cigar incident?

[ElvisL1ves]

Xploder, are you ever gonna read a cite or an explanation you're given? Try it sometime.

C of I, reread the definitions listed above. The common ones don't matter; the ones the defendant is told to use in a deposition are the ones that matter for purposes of that deposition. Hell, yes, they were tortured, not to say perverted and prurient, but those were the rules, right?

[Jodi]

ELVIS --

Jodi, the definition provided by the Scaife/Klayman (left him out originally, sorry) lawyers includes giving a blowjob, but not getting one. Believe it or not. Clinton was not at any time accused of blowing Monica. This subject was, in fact, very thoroughly reported at the time, but perhaps not in the partisanly-filtered news sources you apparently use exclusively, even now.

Does it hurt to not know what you're talking about? Does it cause you any sort of physical paint? I answered the question you posed using the very definition you posted. Are you truly so craven, so intellectually dishonest, as to pretend that you didn't? Believe it or not, if you did not want to include "being blown by" within the definition under discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have posted that part of the definition. And if you think I'm the one coming across as partisan here, you need to put down the crack pipe. As I have said (repeatedly), I do not give a rat's ass about the political end of this. I don't like Clinton's actions for the following reasons: (1) I don't like being lied to, and he lied to the entire public; (2) I don't like a person misusing the office of the Presidency in a manner that brings dishonor upon the office; (3) I don't like stories about powerful men having affairs with women who work for or with them; and (4) I really don't like lawyers who lie under oath. None of these are politically motivated, by the way, though I don't expect you to understand that. But then, I don't expect you to understand much.

The tortured definition, btw, was in fact provided by the plaintiff's lawyers, as I said originally and which you hotly and dismissively denied, thereby ruining whatever credibility as a lawyer you might have brought to this conversation. Now tell me more about how you carefully read stuff. If you like getting laughs, that is.

Sure. I carefully read and used the definition you posted, and pointed out -- correctly -- that you had (have) your head so far up your ass as to totally not understand that the sexual act under discussion is CLEARLY covered by THE VERY DEFINITION YOU POSTED. Now, it appears that you did not intend to post the entire definition -- but refresh my memory: how is your idiocy my problem? The only thing worth any laughs is the very idea I or anyone would look to such a manifest idiot as yourself for judgment about my credibilty.

I'll leave out how you're ignoring, for reasons that doubtless seem good to you but are still clear to the unblinkered, the propriety of filing a groundless suit in the first place, or of a judge letting it do maximum damage to a plaintiff's reputation before even starting to consider if there is any merit to the actual basis of the charge.

I left it out because the issue under discussion -- the only issue, as far as I am concerned -- is whether Clinton lied. Which -- all together now -- he did. How is the merits of the suit in question relevant to that? How is the "damage to the plaintiff's reputation" relevant to that? So I left out lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the question under discussion -- how partisan of me. :rolleyes: As I have already said, if you want to argue that the questions should not have been asked in the first place, hey, fine with me. Just don't attempt to argue the man didn't lie under oath, because he did.

Gang, I already provided a cite, and it was just the first of many Google hits. You can do your own reading and thinking, and not depend on the opinion of a Republican judge whose mishandling of the case lets one think her ruling as above was simple ass-covering. Now take all your ostensible "gotcha's" and carefully insert them in the orifice of your choosing.

ELVIS, you have lost this argument. You asked where Clinton lied. You have been pointed to transcripts and court orders setting forth where he lied. You have retreated back to contending that the judge is some dirty rotten Republican partisan and that his answers were only "misleading," conveniently ignoring the fact that giving misleading and deceptive answers is lying. You have also had pointed out to you that Clinton under oath denied being alone with ML at any time -- which, unless you think he performed oral sex on him with someone else in the room would be a . . . anyone? anyone? . . . A LIE.

Your continued contention that he did not lie is premised on such fine and outrageous hairsplitting as to contend -- with a straight face, apparently -- that ML could be having sexual relations with Clinton while at the same time he was somehow not having sexual relations with her; with presuming, against all logic, that he could use a cigar on her in an extremely intimate manner without actually touching her; that apparently all the sexual hijinks went on with others in the room (since he claimed to never be alone with her); that every time she contended they engaged in sexual relations she was lying; that an attorney would not understand the importance of giving direct and nondeceptive answers when placed under oath; and that when Clinton looked the United States of America in the eye on national TV and declared "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was still using the tortured definition he hid behind at his depositon, instead of the meaning of "sexual relations" employed by God and everyone, which obviously includes both giving and receiving oral sex.

And let me tell you something else: You should not have to work so hard. You should not have to follow your leader into the woods of half-truths and tortured parsing of common words and phrases in order to contend, against all evidence and all common sense, that he didn't lie. Better by far to just say "Yep, he lied; bad dog. But they shouldn't have asked him those questions in the first place; it was reasonable that he'd lie about something so personal; he was the best president in the history of the nation." We might have an extensive debate about that -- well, not us, since I think the whole subject has been beaten into subatomic particles and is by now beyond tiresome -- but at least you could defend yourself without making it look like you are in total denial of what is manifest reality to the rest of us.

So you might invite me to insert my "gotcha" -- by which I assume you mean the very citations you asked for -- in my ass, but I in turn would invite you to pull your head out of yours, on this particular point at least.

[Jodi]

C of I, reread the definitions listed above. The common ones don't matter; the ones the defendant is told to use in a deposition are the ones that matter for purposes of that deposition.

And for purposes of the deposition only, leaving no explanation for his lies to the American public on TV (not at a deposition), or his lies in claiming he was never alone with her. And do you realize how sad it is that you are reduced to claiming the common definitions don't matter? Is that rationale really worth your defense?

[Jodi]

And let us all keep in mind that even if Clinton was right to adhere to the tortured definition in the deposition, his repeated lying was not limited to a deposition:

FROM THE DEPOSITION:

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?
A. No.
Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

(Note that here they are talking about an extramarital affair, not specifically "sexual relations" as defined.)

FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH JIM LEHRER

A: There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true.

Q: "No improper relationship" – define what you mean by that.

A: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship.

(Note that he is obviously not using the tortured deposition definition, since he says to Jim Lehrer "I think you know what that [a sexual relationship] means." Unless you think he thought Jim Lehrer wouldn't consider a blowjob to be sexual?)

FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH ROLL CALL

Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. . . . But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. . . .
Q: Was it in any way sexual?
A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.

FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

Q: Is there any truth to the allegation of an affair between you and the young woman?
A: No, that's not true, either.

FROM HIS TELEVISED AUGUST 18, 1997 SPEECH

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife.

The man lied. Repeatedly. Deal with it, and get over it.

[Beagle]

The definition you provided makes Clinton a liar if he groped Monica's breasts with an intent to gratify her.

Clinton: "I had no intent to gratify that woman..."

3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Clinton's genitals (the person) went into part (the mouth) of another person's body. What part of "(genitals) of the person" and "any part" do you not understand Elvis?

[Xploder]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Xploder, are you ever gonna read a cite or an explanation you're given? Try it sometime.

Hey Partisan-boy...do YOU ever read a cite and actually understand said cite? If so, I've never seen it.

[Liberal]

Orgininally posted by ElvisL1ves
Xploder, are you ever gonna read a cite or an explanation you're given? Try it sometime.:D :D :D :D :D

Funniest SDMB line EVER!

Regarding the cigar, whether he touched her genitalia depends, I reckon, on how much his grip was choked up on the stogie and how far he pushed it. I wager that at the very least, he brushed against the pubic hair.

[ElvisL1ves]

SHE did the pushing, Lib. That old perv Starr made it clear in that porn novel we paid him $40M to write.

Jodi, the charge under discussion is "lying under oath". the lack of definition of "affair", too, in the other deposition you've brought in - kinda implies an emotional bond in normal use. But we don't know, because the Scaife-Klayman lawyers never offered a definition for purposes of that deposition.

Nice try, too, dragging in things said not under oath, but that just ain't gonna fly except in your own hate-filled mind. It just isn't relevant to a discussion of what was said under oath. But, surprise, surprise - that's all you've got left to stoke your hate. See the difference? Now, is there anything else you've stated as fact or as law, in the process of releasing your hatred, that you'd like to, um, "clarify" - other than the bullshit you've spewed that I've already pointed out to you?

You say I've lost an argument, but I wasn't in the one you'd like it to be - the one where you decide that someone is immoral and a Democrat, and therefore he's guilty of something under the law too. Now wipe the foam off your lips and try addressing the point.

Beagle, you put the "if" in your own premise, making your conclusion hypothetical. He was never asked that under oath, though, was he? But, hell, he would have lied if he had been, right? String him up.

Xploder, if you have a point you can support, you've had ample time to do so.

[Xploder]

My point oh one who has no brain, is that you don't seem to understand when you've lost an argument. You bitch and bitch and bitch and backstep and backstep and try to explain that whatever the hell we may have said was not what you were talking about.

Clinton lied under oath. No matter how many ways you say that he didn't nor how many times you try and state differently, it's a fact. He lied.

Get the fuck over it.

And yourself.

[Liberal]

Elvis

SHE did the pushing, Lib. That old perv Starr made it clear in that porn novel we paid him $40M to write.If writing about it is perverted, then what is watching it? :)

[Hamlet]

Elvisl1ves, I'm sure you realize the argument you are making is precisely the one Clinton tried to use to explain to the Court how he didn't lie. And I'm sure you realize that the Court rejected that laughable defense, as did almost anybody with a brain in their head.

Rereading my comments in this post, I realize I gave ElvisL1ves too much credit by assuming he has the intellectual capacity of a garden slug. In fact, I'm not sure he is capable of realizing anything.

[ElvisL1ves]

Lib, you sound jealous. They were consenting adults, right? A libertarian should understand and respect that.

Hamlet, and xploder, now now, boys. You have the original source materials available to you and you may be capable of phrasing your own arguments. Repeating what we already know, that a party with an interest in the case made a ruling otherwise, does not advance the cause here. Yes, I know that's the argument he made. I also know that Judge Webber let the defendant in a case for which she was responsible get his reputation dragged through the mud before finally dismissing it for complete lack of grounds. She had a personal interest in ruling the way she did, and I don't necessarily even disagree with most of it despite her refusal to consider the circumstances, but she still couldn't bring herself to say he had committed perjury, did she?

You guys need to stick with the accusation you're laying, and make sure your arguments are consistent. If you're going to use the Webber ruling as a referral to authority, you have to conclude he did not, in fact, commit perjury. That's your own argument.

I hope you've enjoyed yourselves. Now fucken-sie auf, kinder.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
I also know that Judge Webber let the defendant in a case for which she was responsible get his reputation dragged through the mud before finally dismissing it for complete lack of grounds. She had a personal interest in ruling the way she did, and I don't necessarily even disagree with most of it despite her refusal to consider the circumstances, but she still couldn't bring herself to say he had committed perjury, did she?Before you go about slandering a federal judge, do you have any citation for you assertion that Judge Webber-Wright had a personal interest or was biased against Clinton? Everything I've heard about her is that she is a well-reasoned, fair judge. I'll wait for you to provide proof otherwise, and if you don't I'll expect a retraction. Well, I won't really expect a retraction from the likes of you, but you get the idea.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
You guys need to stick with the accusation you're laying, and make sure your arguments are consistent. If you're going to use the Webber ruling as a referral to authority, you have to conclude he did not, in fact, commit perjury. That's your own argument.Wha...Huh? For those of us not who don't live in that little world you seem to inhabit, could you explain this to me. I'm having trouble following your logic.

I hope you've enjoyed yourselves. Now fucken-sie auf, kinder. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Liberal]

Elvis

Lib, you sound jealous. They were consenting adults, right? A libertarian should understand and respect that.Just to remind you, you called Ken Starr a pervert for writing about Clinton's act, and my question to you was "If writing about it is perverted, then what is watching it?"

Answering the question doesn't require you to say anything about how I sound, who consented, or what libertarians respect. Answering the question merely requires a sentence that begins like this: "If writing about it is perverted, then watching it is..."

Now, you finish the sentence.

[Jodi]

ELVIS --

Jodi, the charge under discussion is "lying under oath". the lack of definition of "affair", too, in the other deposition you've brought in - kinda implies an emotional bond in normal use. But we don't know, because the Scaife-Klayman lawyers never offered a definition for purposes of that deposition.

I see. So what everyone else in the known universe would consider an affair -- having sexual relations with someone -- suddenly becomes not an affair because there's some missing emotional component? Sex isn't sex; an affair isn't an affair -- I'm telling you, man, you should not have to work this hard. You are taking Clinton's obvious intellectual dishonesty and making it your own. Why on earth would you want to do that?

You have been pointed to the very transcript citing in which the man lied under oath. You have been pointed to a federal court order by which he was held in contempt -- for lying under oath. You have been shown that "lying" includes making false and misleading statements, which he admits he did. I can only show you the evidence; I can't make you read it.

You asked where he lied under oath. You were shown where he lied under oath. If you prefer to remove your intellect, or your honesty, or both, rather than admit to that, that's of course your perogative. I just hope you don't imagine it reflects well on you.

Nice try, too, dragging in things said not under oath, but that just ain't gonna fly except in your own hate-filled mind.

My "hate-filled" mind? :) As I have said, I don't hate the man; I find him largely irrelevant. I have no idea why you think your position becomes any more defensible based on my emotional state, anyway.

But, surprise, surprise - that's all you've got left to stoke your hate. See the difference? Now, is there anything else you've stated as fact or as law, in the process of releasing your hatred, that you'd like to, um, "clarify" - other than the bullshit you've spewed that I've already pointed out to you?

I have no "hate" to stoke or release. Unlike you, I really don't care that much about this particular issue, except such obvious and willful intellectual dishonesty such as yours strikes me as really distasteful. And you have singularly failed to show that anything I have said is "bullshit." The man lied about having a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. He lied about it under oath. Virtually every person in this thread, with the exception of you, understands this. The vast majority of Americans understood this. You, apparently, do not. Which is fine by me, of course; I can't force knowledge into your head. But you asked where he lied under oath and you had the several occasions in which he lied under oath pointed out to you -- repeatedly. What more is there to discuss?

So cling to your position, regardless of logic, evidence, or intellect. It matters not to me. You might keep in mind, however, that though you may choose to keep your head up in your own ass, you are not required to keep your head up Clinton's.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by ElvisLies
She had a personal interest in ruling the way she did,

I second Hamlet's request. What was this personal interest?

she still couldn't bring herself to say he had committed perjury, did she?

It seems to me that the issue of whether Clinton committed perjury was not before her. After all, it wasn't a criminal proceeding.

[Measure for Measure]

Lib: "Admittedly, I'm old now, and not as agile with my imagination as I used to be, but I'm not sure how one receives oral sex without making "contact with the genitalia". Are you positing that the head of his genitalia just sort of floated around the empty space inside Monica's mouth without ever actually making contact?"

Not to worry, Lib, one doesn't need a comprehensive familiarity with the Kama Sutra to get this. (Smilie implied).

Clinton had contact with his own genitalia, presumably. As did Monica.

However, Clinton did not have contact with Monica's genitalia. So we are left with the fact that, according to definition #1 of sex (and noting that definitions #2 and #3 were set aside by the court, as documented in my links (Beagle, take a look), Monica could have sex with Clinton while Clinton was not having sex with Monica.

Odd, but that's the law for ya.

(Or rather, that's the law, when the plaintiffs are apparently snoozing during pre-trial deliberations.)

lucwarm
Let me start with the big picture. IMO, Clinton should have been prosecuted for perjury after he left office. It's not clear to me, however, whether he would have been found guilty. On the basis of what I know, I lack sufficient evidence to move to convict.

More narrowly, #1) I recall reading in the New York Times how the President is more or less constantly monitored while in the Oval Office, and is hence not truly "alone". So what our ex-pres said was (again) misleading but not false, in the narrow sense.

Now it's obvious I'm not a lawyer, right? I'm not saying that I find a perjury conviction for Bill C. to be implausible; I'm saying it's not clear to me what the precise basis of it would be.

"Also, it seems pretty clear that his interrogatory answer was a lie. (Note that interrogatories are, in theory, signed under oath)"

See: I'm not a lawyer (and I don't know what you're referring to). Sorry.

Jodi
I don't deny that Clinton lied to the public about his extramarital sex life. About that, though, I care little: I'm more of a policy sort of guy than a National Enquirer/People Magazine fan.

As for your quoted deposition, it seems to me that "extramarital sexual affair " falls under the rubric of "sexual relations" as defined by the court.

---

More controversially, I am a tiny bit surprised that we are having this conversation.

If you guys truly believe that Clinton lied under oath, why was he sent down for contempt of court rather than perjury? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, or perhaps you guys are intentionally blurring some rather important lines (IMO, of course). Not to be to blunt about it...

Or maybe you're saying that Clinton "lied" under definition #2 (as in, "Statistics can lie") but you sort of understand that he didn't really commit perjury (def. #1). If that's the case, I would recommend that you use a word other than "lie" (how about, "intentionally mislead"?), since using the word "lie" is somewhat misleading, and you don't want your honesty impinged upon.

Apologies for the edginess of this last part.
----

Cross post! I see that lucwarm may have some understanding of why Clinton was nailed for contempt but not perjury. Please elaborate, if you feel like it. Are you saying (for example) that if there was a perjury trial that it would have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally posted by Jodi
You have been shown that "lying" includes making false and misleading statements, which he admits he did. I can only show you the evidence; I can't make you read it. Ok, this wasn't directed at me, but help me out anyway. Give me 2 examples of Clinton's false statements under oath.*

"Misleading" doesn't count. (Or that's my understanding of perjury, which may be incorrect).

I understand that the good judge indeed used the phrase, "false and misleading", but I haven't come across any substantiation of the word "false".

Also: Wait a second. You mean to say that Clinton admitted to "misleading" but not "false", right?
---

* Actually, 1 example would be ok; it's just that the word "statements" is plural.

[Jodi]

FLOWBARK --

I don't deny that Clinton lied to the public about his extramarital sex life. About that, though, I care little: I'm more of a policy sort of guy than a National Enquirer/People Magazine fan.

And the fact that the President of the United States would bald-face lie to the public, not once but repeatedly, not "I'm not going to answer that, it's none of your business," but lie, implicates no greater policy or political concern to you? I continue to be astonished by statements like this -- which is odd, since of course by this point nothing about this should surprise me any more.

As for your quoted deposition, it seems to me that "extramarital sexual affair " falls under the rubric of "sexual relations" as defined by the court.

Well, that's interesting. As a matter of fact, however, the term "sexual affair" was not defined with great precision at the deposition, andd therefore the term is to be given its commonly understood definition. Unless you would like to argue that oral sex is not part of a sexual affair?

More controversially, I am a tiny bit surprised that we are having this conversation. If you guys truly believe that Clinton lied under oath, why was he sent down for contempt of court rather than perjury? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, or perhaps you guys are intentionally blurring some rather important lines (IMO, of course). Not to be to blunt about it . . . .

What "guys" are you talking about in referring to "you guys"? Do you think someone's over here posting with me? I speak for myself, and only for myself.

He was cited for contempt of court instead of perjury because prosecution for perjury is difficult to do, and therefore rare. The defendant always says "Gee, I misunderstood the question" or "I was mistaken" or "I didn't think when you asked me if I had any grass on me you meant marijuana, I thought you meant lawn grass." Prosecution for perjury is a different question than whether reasonable minds can conclude, under the circumstances, that a person lied under oath. The last is a great example of that: Assuming the defendant is a marijuana dealer, we can attribute the lack of a perjury conviction to prosecutorial inexactitude in questioning; meanwhile, you know and I know the grass dealer was lying.

So the question, IMO, isn't whether the difficulty inherent in proving perjury prevents its prosecution -- it often does -- but whether the evidence indicates the man lied under oath. And, once again, it certainly does. You are dealing with a lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar who was perfectly aware of what he was being asked, and who lied about it. Repeatedly, and under oath. The federal judge recognized as much, as did the American people.

Or maybe you're saying that Clinton "lied" under definition #2 (as in, "Statistics can lie") but you sort of understand that he didn't really commit perjury (def. #1).

First, I'm fairly certain I'm not "sort of understanding" any of this; I think I have a pretty good handle on it. Second, the question of whether Clinton committed perjury is a different one than whether it was worthwhile to prosecute him for perjury, or that he would ultimately be convicted of it. And let there be no doubt: IMO, he committed perjury. In any event, and as has been pointed out (repeatedly) a federal judge held that "the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process." The only response to this has been that the judge, like me apparently, is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- you know, one of "us guys." :rolleyes: Third, I would remind you that a failure to prosecute for any crime, including perjury, does not necessarily constitute an affirmative comment on whether or not the crime was committed; no prosecution != no crime. So the only affirmative statement we have on the matter is that of the federal judge, who held Clinton in contempt for lying under oath.

If that's the case, I would recommend that you use a word other than "lie" (how about, "intentionally mislead"?), since using the word "lie" is somewhat misleading, and you don't want your honesty impinged upon.

You are shitting me. You think the use of the word "lie" is "misleading"? He gave "false" -- false -- "misleading, and evasive answers." Furthermore, even if I were to say "Gee, he was 'merely' intentionally, repeatedly, obstructionistly, misleading," that falls under the very definition you posted[/]! How on earth could I be "misleading" by using "lie" to describe an act that YOUR dictionary describes as "a lie"? What fresh semantic hell is this?

He lied under oath. The only way you can argue he did [i]not lie under oath is to engage in semantic gymnastics that are so tortured they are painful to watch, and that IMO call into question either the intellectual honesty or the intelligence, or both, of those making them. I don't even think the attorneys who broke their backs defending him from perjury charged didn't really think he did not lie under oath.

And for all the veiled and direct accusations of what a partisan I am -- which I'm really not, I care far more about lawyers lying under oath than I do about any political situation, present or past -- I really don't get why this is something you guys are in such deep denial about. Even if Clinton didn't actually lie under oath, as you assert, he certainly was intentionally misleading and evasive. And he clearly lied, repeatedly and directly, when not under oath. So what's the position here? "Sure he was intentionally misleading and evasive under oath, and sure, he lied repeatedly when not under oath, but darn it, he didn't technically lie while under oath!" Even if was to grant you that -- which I do not -- that's your defense of the guy?

Hell, I can do better than that off the top of my head: Yes, he lied. But he lied under circumstances that most people would lie under, and while answering questions that he should not have had to answer in the first place. And he was a great president whose personal life should never have been the subject of political maneuverings, and who should never had had to deal with law suits against him personally while in office.

See? It's perfectly possible to defend the guy without having to check your common sense at the door.

[Jodi]

FLOWBARK

Ok, this wasn't directed at me, but help me out anyway Give me 2 examples of Clinton's false statements under oath.

Here you go: "Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?" "No." "If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?" "That would not be true."

Those statements are [b]false[/i]. The only way you can pretend they are not false is to assume that the definition for "extramarital affair" was the same as the definition of "sexual relations, an assumption that has no basis in the deposition and fails the general test that words and phrases that are undefined are to be given their generally understood meanings. Unless you'd like to argue that multiiple sexual encounters with a person other than your spouse, including oral sex, do not constitute an extramarital affair as the term is generally understood?

[Liberal]

Flowbark

However, Clinton did not have contact with Monica's genitalia. So we are left with the fact that, according to definition #1 of sex (and noting that definitions #2 and #3 were set aside by the court, as documented in my links (Beagle, take a look), Monica could have sex with Clinton while Clinton was not having sex with Monica.Okay. But why is "genitalia" presumed to be dative rather than genitive? While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I do speak English. The phrase "contact with the genitalia" implies both: [1] Subject has contact with the genitalia of Object" and [2] "Subject's genitalia has contact with Object". So, if Clinton put his Bobo in Monica's mouth, then he made contact with her using his genitalia — thus, "contact with the genitalia".

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Clinton was aware of the judge's two rulings and, as the judge said, deliberately gave false and misleading testimony in order to obstruct justice. That's why she held him in contempt of court.


Clinton was right to be in contempt of that court -- it was the tool of a partisan witch hunt, and deserved nothing more than spitting on. Clinton was able to parse his way out of it -- more power to him.

There are a number of Republican judges in this country, including several on the Supreme Court, whom any reasonable person must hold in contempt, because of what they are.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
Clinton was right to be in contempt of that court -- it was the tool of a partisan witch hunt, and deserved nothing more than spitting on. Clinton was able to parse his way out of it -- more power to him. Of course. If anyone disagrees with any lawsuit against them, they should be able to lie under oath. It's attitudes like this that continue to degrade confidence in the judical system.

Bill Clinton should not be above the law. Nobody should.

[Liberal]

Evil Captor

Clinton was right to be in contempt of that court -- it was the tool of a partisan witch hunt, and deserved nothing more than spitting on. Clinton was able to parse his way out of it -- more power to him.Parsed his way out of it? I think he parsed his way into a couple of fines and disbarments, didn't he? :D

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Of course. If anyone disagrees with any lawsuit against them, they should be able to lie under oath. It's attitudes like this that continue to degrade confidence in the judical system.

Bill Clinton should not be above the law. Nobody should.

No, what degrades confidence in the judicial system is its prostitution to the needs of Pubbie influence peddlers, prostitution which reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court. If the judicial system wants respect, it has to earn it. It earns LOSS of respect when it becomes a cheap ho bending over for every Pubbie influence group that wants to use it for something.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
No, what degrades confidence in the judicial system is its prostitution to the needs of Pubbie influence peddlers, prostitution which reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court. If the judicial system wants respect, it has to earn it. It earns LOSS of respect when it becomes a cheap ho bending over for every Pubbie influence group that wants to use it for something. Well, at least your consistently blinded by partianship. You got that going for you. You advocate a position where Clinton gets to lie through his teeth, under oath, thereby putting him above the law. No amount of disparging the judicial system, ranting against Republicans (which, I wish everyone in the thread would get clear, I most definitely do not support), specious logic, or colorful euphamisms changes that fact.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Well, at least your consistently blinded by partianship. You got that going for you. You advocate a position where Clinton gets to lie through his teeth, under oath, thereby putting him above the law. No amount of disparging the judicial system, ranting against Republicans (which, I wish everyone in the thread would get clear, I most definitely do not support), specious logic, or colorful euphamisms changes that fact.

And no amount of crying "partisan!" will change the fact that the courts have not behaved in ways calculated to engender respect. If they want respect, they must make decisions that are respectable. They have not done so.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
And no amount of crying "partisan!" will change the fact that the courts have not behaved in ways calculated to engender respect. If they want respect, they must make decisions that are respectable. They have not done so. I'll ask you what I asked Elvis, do you have any indication that the Court acted with bias against Clinton or acted in any way inappropriately. I'll also ask what your rationale is to allow some people, Clinton, to put themselves above the law and allow them to lie under oath.

[Measure for Measure]

JODI ----

Let's get the personal stuff out of the way first. "You guys" can be read to mean, "Jodi, Lib, Beagle and others who maintain that Clinton lied under oath". I wasn't picking on Jodi in particular: my post mentioned more than one username.

------ "The only response to this has been that the judge, like me apparently, is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- you know, one of "us guys.""

No, I asked for substantiation of the claim that Clinton lied under oath, by making a false (as opposed to misleading) statement. (Which, BTW, you kindly provided).

--- What fresh semantic hell is this?

Nice line. Look, there's a distinction between "falsehood" and "misleading". I prefer to apply the word "lie" to the former, but not the latter; I consider the latter use of the word lie to be figurative. HOWEVER, please note, I have no problem with others characterizing misleading statements as "lies" as long as the speaker makes clear that he is referring to sincerity and not accuracy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691102767/102-4345774-7669754?v=glance).

---- Even if was to grant you that -- which I do not -- that's your defense of the guy?

No, it's not a "defense". Just trying to get at the truth of the matter. You know, fighting ignorance and all that.

First, I try to (re)establish the facts. Only then do I move to an evaluation.

---- ----- ----- -----
Now, let's move towards Flowbark's core issue (which is a legal one), kindly answered by Jodi: Here you go: "Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?" "No." "If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?" "That would not be true."

Those statements are false. The only way you can pretend they are not false is to assume that the definition for "extramarital affair" was the same as the definition of "sexual relations, an assumption that has no basis in the deposition and fails the general test that words and phrases that are undefined are to be given their generally understood meanings. Unless you'd like to argue that multiiple sexual encounters with a person other than your spouse, including oral sex, do not constitute an extramarital affair as the term is generally understood?[1] Italics and footnote added. Permit me to work through an example. Say a court defines "fishing", rather implausibly, as "Using a line and hook with the intent of permanently removing from the water members of the phylum chordata, class Elasmobranchii (sharks) or Actinopterygii (Bony Fishes)."

Prosecutor: Mr. Flowbark, did you fish in 2002?
Flowbark: No. (Let's say flowbark threw all the salmon back, except for that one perch where he used a net. Oh and he made some fresh clam chowder for himself after a day at the beach. mmmmmmm.)
Prosecutor: Mr. Flowbark, If somebody said you fished in 2002, would that be a lie?"
Flowbark: That would not be true. (Well no, not according to your definition, pal).

Here's my question. Can flowbark reasonably state that by defining "fishing" the court also defined the verb form and other variants of that word? I would say, "Yes", but I'm not a lawyer. JODI - Do you really know the answer to this (i.e do you have a particular case in mind)? I know you gave me the answer, but I'm just checking. I'm not necessarily asking for a cite though, as that would require a level of work more appropriate to GD. Although if you answer in the affirmative without substantiation, I'll be inclined to conclude that, "there is some controversy regarding X", as opposed to, "it appears to be the case that X".

-----

Lib: Ah so you're a grammarian now are you!?! ;) Rereading definition #1 of sex, it seems to me that you make a decent point. My problem is that if you allow such an interpretation, the scope of the definition might slide into ridiculously broad territory.

But perhaps my whole approach is wrong. I have assumed that if the plaintiffs stand up and agree to a preposterous definition of a commonly used term, that it is understood that the witnesses are suppose to adopt that definition for trial purposes. (Although, again, I'm rather sympathetic to the "Clinton jerked the court around", contention.)

----

[1] Hypothetically,I could argue that - there is some evidence that a sizable portion of the public doesn't characterize blowjobs as "sex" - but I won't. I won't because frankly I don't buy into that line of argument. Oh, and Jodi you made some other points which I'll defer from addressing so as to focus on the core issues.

[Liberal]

Flow

Lib: Ah so you're a grammarian now are you!?! Rereading definition #1 of sex, it seems to me that you make a decent point. My problem is that if you allow such an interpretation, the scope of the definition might slide into ridiculously broad territory.It doesn't have to slide. It doesn't even have to lean. When you find yourself in a position of having to tip-toe through the English language like a barefoot man in a roomful of broken glass, you're already there. Will you at the very least admit that you wouldn't even be attempting this sort of defense for, say, George W. Bush? Or must we go on?

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I'll ask you what I asked Elvis, do you have any indication that the Court acted with bias against Clinton or acted in any way inappropriately. I'll also ask what your rationale is to allow some people, Clinton, to put themselves above the law and allow them to lie under oath.

C'mon, Hamlet, the court was "investigating" a consensual BLOWJOB! The were INVESTIGATING a blowjob! A consensual one! There's no dignity, no appropriateness, no fairness and no rationality here ... it's an obvious bit of political scumbaggery, and no amount of obfuscation or concentration on what Clinton said or didn't say will EVER conceal that fact.

The harder you press this issue, the worse you look, because everybody knows that at the root of your complaint is a blowjob. A consensual blowjob. There's no legalism, no turn of phrase, no sophistry of any kind that can change that. Got it? Good.

[Liberal]

The court, in fact, was investigating an allegation of sexual harrassment. That's what the case was about.

As Judge Wright explained, whether Clinton was having sex with other state and federal government employees was pertinent to the case, since it had a bearing on his pattern of behavior. The court needed to know, and the plaintiff had a right to know, whether he exhibited a pattern of sexual indiscretion with his subordinates.

Got it? Didn't think so.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Libertarian
The court, in fact, was investigating an allegation of sexual harrassment. That's what the case was about.

As Judge Wright explained, whether Clinton was having sex with other state and federal government employees was pertinent to the case, since it had a bearing on his pattern of behavior. The court needed to know, and the plaintiff had a right to know, whether he exhibited a pattern of sexual indiscretion with his subordinates.

Got it? Didn't think so.

I hear the Wright giving cover on what was being investigating. I got it.

I JUST DON'T BUY IT!!!!

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
C'mon, Hamlet, the court was "investigating" a consensual BLOWJOB!

Gah. The court was "investigating" nothing. The parties to the case were doing the investigating -- known as "discovery" -- and the court was presiding over the discovery.

The American rules of discovery are very liberal. In a sexual harassment lawsuit, asking the alleged perp. about his sexual relationships with other subordinates is well within the bounds of permissible discovery. IMHO of course.

It is worth bearing in mind that the plaintiff did not know the facts of the "consensual blowjob." The plaintiff did not know there was a blowjob, and did not know if it was consensual. A defendant is not the judge in his own case -- he cannot legally decide that responsive information is irrelevant and lie about it to cover it up.

But let me ask you a question: Do you know anything at all about the practice and procedure of discovery in civil litigation? If not, then what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

If you do know something about discovery, are you claiming that what was allowed in Clinton's case was significantly different from what is routinely allowed in other sexual harassment cases? If so, what was different? And if not, again the question -- what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
C'mon, Hamlet, the court was "investigating" a consensual BLOWJOB! The were INVESTIGATING a blowjob! A consensual one! There's no dignity, no appropriateness, no fairness and no rationality here ... it's an obvious bit of political scumbaggery, and no amount of obfuscation or concentration on what Clinton said or didn't say will EVER conceal that fact.Great answer, champ!!! I ask for an cite for the bias of the judge and you give me: "It's obvious." Pure genius. I am in awe of your obvious intellectual superiority and prostrate myself before you.

As Lib and lucwarm have pointed out already: the Court was not investigating anything, it was presiding over a lawsuit for sexual harassment. Pursuant to the lawsuit, it allowed for discovery, including information of other times Clinton may have had sex with his underlings. I've seen nothing, let me emphasize, NOTHING, that would show that allowing that kind of discovery was an improper legal decision. Judge Webber-Wright did not file the lawsuit, she did not depose Clinton, and she never made Clinton lie. Originally posted by Evil Captor
The harder you press this issue, the worse you look, because everybody knows that at the root of your complaint is a blowjob.You know, you ignorant baboon (quick apology to all the baboon out there, I do not have one iota of respect for your opinion that would made me give a shit about what you think. There's not much I can do to fight your continued delusions about my opinions or ability to express them. However, the fact remains, Clinton lied under oath. Your mindless braying about "it's just a blowjob" or your continued slandering of a federal judge will not change that fact.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Flow
When you find yourself in a position of having to tip-toe through the English language like a barefoot man in a roomful of broken glass, you're already there. Will you at the very least admit that you wouldn't even be attempting this sort of defense for, say, George W. Bush? Or must we go on? Actually it's fairly simple. When Clinton talks on TV or radio, we can assume common definitions of common words. When he's giving testimony, we assume the court's technical definitions of common words, which by necessity, inevitably require parsing.*

As for partisanship, to my eyes, Clinton's testimony looks like "jerking the court around" (i.e. contempt of court, which is inappropriate for a sitting President) rather that "making statements that are technically inaccurate" (i.e "perjury" (which is worse)).

Again, Clinton lied to the American public about his blowjobs. Similarly, it's my understanding that Bush lied to a reporter regarding his drunken driving citation. <<I'm referring to the Wayne Slater incident>>. Both of the these errors seem less serious than earning "contempt of court" while in office (although comparing these misdeeds is a tedious exercise that I haven't given much thought to).
----
* To conclude, anybody who has spent a little time (but not a lot of time) with law references will realize that you can't practice that honorable profession without the ability to understand and manipulate some rather obtuse distinctions.
=====
Now, I may have misunderstood the law in general (and perjury in particular) in some fundamental way. I always thought it was the job of the interrogator to fashion the right sort of questions. Anybody with a legal background is welcome to correct me. See my fishing example.

[wring]

One question I have:

The judge (eventually) dismissed the case, ruling (IIRC) that even if all of what the plantiff alledged was true, it amounted to being boorish behavior, but not harassment in the legal sense.

right?

So, even if all of Paula's statements were considered true and accurate, it still wouldn't be proof of the allegation of harassment.

Given that - why did the case even have depositions etc? if the case itself was flawed beyond redemtion, why was Clinton forced to answer any questions at all?

(that's the thing that bugs the shit out of me - if some one can explain that, I'll be happy. oh, and yes, Clinton lied.)

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by flowbark
Actually it's fairly simple. When Clinton talks on TV or radio, we can assume common definitions of common words. When he's giving testimony, we assume the court's technical definitions of common words, which by necessity, inevitably require parsing.*

As for partisanship, to my eyes, Clinton's testimony looks like "jerking the court around" (i.e. contempt of court, which is inappropriate for a sitting President) rather that "making statements that are technically inaccurate" (i.e "perjury" (which is worse)).

I'm not sure that "perjury" is the same thing as "making statements that are technically inaccurate." See, it's impossible to define every last word in use, and it's almost always possible, after the fact, to come up with definitions allowing one to argue that an answer is technically correct.

In any event, I don't know enough about perjury to say for sure.

Certainly Clinton's answers were sufficient to merit sanctions and professional discipline.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I'll ask you what I asked Elvis, do you have any indication that the Court acted with bias against Clinton or acted in any way inappropriately.
"Had [William Rehnquist] wanted to avoid the appearance of partisanship, the chief justice could have rotated the three positions [of the independent counsels to the Special Division] so that no party had a majority of the three judges for more than two years at a time. But Rehnquist erred in the other direction, going so far as to appoint David Sentelle,a protege of Senator Jesse Helms and former Republican Party chairman in North Carolina's Mecklenburg County, to preside over the Special Division in 1992, and then appointing him to the same position again in 1994. Few commentator s seemed to notice at the time that Sentelle, who had risen so swiftly from a federal judgeship in 1985 to a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals only two years later, lacked the best credentials for such a sensitive political position. ...

"When Rehnquist first named Sentelle to head the Special Division in 1992, the North Carolina native was just forty-eight years old and had served only seven years on the bench. Widely regarded as one of the federal judiciary's most extreme conservatives, he was so enamored of the president who had first appointed him that he named one of his daughters Reagan. ... Even after his elevation to the US appeals court, Sentelle continued to write articles laced with strident partisanship, often couched in religious terms. In one 1991 article Sentelle accused 'leftist heretics' of scheming to turn the United States into 'a collectivist, egalitarian, materialistic, race-conscious, hyper-secular, and socially permissive state.'

"To choose such a figure to preside over the Special Division appeared to mock the appearance of impartiality that the Independent Counsel Act was supposed to guarantee. Besides, there were at least a dozen judges in the DC circuit who were senior to Sentelle and thus better qualified to oversee the independent counsel. Some believe Rehnquist had selected him not because of any particular qualification, but to do exactly what would be expected of a conservative ideologue: that is, to engineer the appointment of reliable Republican lawyers to investigate Democratic officeholders."

--The Hunting of the President, Conason & Lyons, p.131-132

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by rjung


[A bunch of stuff about Rehnquist]



I realize that your quote wasn't addressed to me, but gosh, is that the best evidence you can come up with that Judge Webber was biased against Clinton? You'd think that a book entitled "The Hunting of the President" would have SOMETHING.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by lucwarm
I realize that your quote wasn't addressed to me, but gosh, is that the best evidence you can come up with that Judge Webber was biased against Clinton? You'd think that a book entitled "The Hunting of the President" would have SOMETHING. It was addressed to me, and I'm as confused. Although that Sentelle guy sounds really bad. Not sure what it has to do with anything, but Sentelle probably ties up young damsels to railroad tracks while fiddling with his handlebar moustache.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by lucwarm
Gah. The court was "investigating" nothing. The parties to the case were doing the investigating -- known as "discovery" -- and the court was presiding over the discovery.

Nitpick. A Republican Congress used the courts to "discover" what they wanted -- a blowjob. It's political to the bone, so to speak. You keep trying to cloak a nakedly political investigation with shrouds of "court procedure" but it just won't wash, monkey-boy. The goods were hanging out back when it occurred, they're still hanging out.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
Nitpick. A Republican Congress used the courts to "discover" what they wanted -- a blowjob. It's political to the bone, so to speak. You keep trying to cloak a nakedly political investigation with shrouds of "court procedure" but it just won't wash, monkey-boy. The goods were hanging out back when it occurred, they're still hanging out.

It's certainly possible that the plaintiff's side in Jones v. Clinton was motivated by anti-Clinton bias. But that's not what you claimed earlier.

You claimed, in essence, that the COURT was biased. Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claim?

[rjung]

Originally posted by Hamlet
It was addressed to me, and I'm as confused. Although that Sentelle guy sounds really bad. Not sure what it has to do with anything, but Sentelle probably ties up young damsels to railroad tracks while fiddling with his handlebar moustache.
Sorry, I was just skimming by and saw a query about evil judicial machinations regarding the Clinton witchhunt, and thought I'd toss out a data point -- that the independent council was hardly independent, and stacked from the get-go. I wasn't aware we were looking for a reference to a specific judge.

Not sure if that qualifies as proof for lucwarm that "the COURT" was biased, but apparently some high-level folks were.

[Evil Captor]

The judge must have known she was being used as a political tool (iirc the judge was female). Knowing this, she would naturally have blocked every attempt by the persecution to use her and her court. She did not. Therefore, she was a willing tool, therefore biased. She could of course have been incredibly ignorant and naive -- which also doesn't leave me particularly respectful of the court. I have no use for naive, ignorant judges.

[Liberal]

If you think that the court conducted an investigation, then it isn't the court that is ignorant. :D

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
The judge must have known she was being used as a political tool (iirc the judge was female). Knowing this, she would naturally have blocked every attempt by the persecution to use her and her court. She did not. Therefore, she was a willing tool, therefore biased. She could of course have been incredibly ignorant and naive -- which also doesn't leave me particularly respectful of the court. I have no use for naive, ignorant judges.

Ok, so is it your position that federal judges have a duty to determine whether a lawsuit before them is politically motivated and to dismiss such lawsuits (regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit) before discovery and that any judge who does not do so is biased?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
I have no use for naive, ignorant judges. And I have no use for ignorant posters. As such, I am done dealing with you.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Hamlet
And I have no use for ignorant posters. As such, I am done dealing with you.

Oh, no! I've been "Alas, poor Yoricked!"

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by lucwarm
Ok, so is it your position that federal judges have a duty to determine whether a lawsuit before them is politically motivated and to dismiss such lawsuits (regardless of whether the lawsuit has any merit) before discovery and that any judge who does not do so is biased?

No, it's my position that judges have a duty to see to it that political hacks don't use their courts as a playground for intrigue. I'll put my own words in my mouth, thankyewverymuch.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Libertarian
If you think that the court conducted an investigation, then it isn't the court that is ignorant. :D

They grilled Clinton about the blowjob and the meaning of "is." What's your point, if you have one?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
No, it's my position that judges have a duty to see to it that political hacks don't use their courts as a playground for intrigue. I'll put my own words in my mouth, thankyewverymuch.

And can you cite ANY federal rule of procedure; case; statute; or regulation to support your position?

See, let me explain something to you . . . there is something known as the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." In deciding what is subject to discovery, judges follow the FRCP and cases interpreting those rules.

So, I ask of you . . . CITE???????

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
No, it's my position that judges have a duty to see to it that political hacks don't use their courts as a playground for intrigue. I'll put my own words in my mouth, thankyewverymuch.

And to implement this duty, the judges are permitted to ignore the rules of procedure and the law?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by wring
One question I have:

The judge (eventually) dismissed the case, ruling (IIRC) that even if all of what the plantiff alledged was true, it amounted to being boorish behavior, but not harassment in the legal sense.

right?

Not exactly. As I understand, the case was dismissed on summary judgment (Rule 56) not on the pleadings (Rule 12). A Rule 12 dismissal says, in effect, that even if everything alleged in the Complaint is true, the plaintiff would still lose. A Rule 56 dismissal says that if you look at all the evidence presented and give the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, she still doesn't have a case.

In the case of summary judgment, it's -- generally speaking -- really hard to get summary judgment before the non-moving party has had the opportunity to take discovery.

Given that - why did the case even have depositions etc? if the case itself was flawed beyond redemtion, why was Clinton forced to answer any questions at all?

I would have to study the papers carefully to give you a good answer, but as I mentioned, it's hard to get summary judgment before discovery is complete and for whatever reason, Clinton was not able to get a Rule 12 dismissal. Most likely, either the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action, or, for tactical reasons his attorneys decided not to go for it.

In any event, I have seen no evidence at all that the Court's decisions were in any way improper.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sorry for the delay, folks, I've been on a biz trip away from convenient SDMB access. Now then ...

Didn't any of you yahoos even notice at the time what the suit was about? What the hell is the matter with you? It was not about sexual harassment, despite certain solemn statements of "truth" here to that effect. No, you swallowed that meme whole.

The suit, and you don't have to "study the papers carefully" to recall if you paid even basic attention to the news at the time, was about job discrimination. Let that sink in before you answer, Counselors. Job discrimination. The Scaife/Klayman crack legal team (not "Jones", let's not be precious here) had no evidence to produce that their puppet plaintiff had experienced any job discrimination, much less that it was linked to Clinton's conduct, nor even that the alleged sexual incident had occurred. None. That was the basis for dropping the suit once the judge finally asked if there was, in fact, anything to it, anything at all. Clear now, all you legal beagles? Yes? You too, Jodi? Good.

Now then, why didn't the judge even ask such a basic question until something like two years after filing? Why did she fail to take any measures at all to enforce the defendant's right to presumption of innocence in the meantime? Was she totally unaware of the highly-public nature of the case and therefore did not try to maintain even the appearance of impartiality?

If you have any more-presentable reason to offer other than what I've suggested, please state so. I don't enjoy the thought that the law can be so easily subverted to serve personal or political agendas either, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that it's possible and can happen. We've seen examples from at least one self-described lawyer here that even the basic facts of a case aren't all that important to some of you - and it's even scarier that this little ethicality problem can even exist down at your retail level of law, too.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by ElvisLies


Didn't any of you yahoos even notice at the time what the suit was about? What the hell is the matter with you? It was not about sexual harassment, despite certain solemn statements of "truth" here to that effect. No, you swallowed that meme whole.

The suit, and you don't have to "study the papers carefully" to recall if you paid even basic attention to the news at the time, was about job discrimination.

As I understand things, sexual harassment lawsuits are frequently brought under job discrimination laws. I have no idea why you attempt to draw a distinction between "sexual harassment" and "job discrimination."

The Scaife/Klayman crack legal team (not "Jones", let's not be precious here) had no evidence to produce that their puppet plaintiff had experienced any job discrimination, much less that it was linked to Clinton's conduct, nor even that the alleged sexual incident had occurred. None. That was the basis for dropping the suit once the judge finally asked if there was, in fact, anything to it, anything at all. Clear now, all you legal beagles? Yes? You too, Jodi? Good.

You are claiming that the suit was voluntarily dismissed? CITE!!!!

Now then, why didn't the judge even ask such a basic question until something like two years after filing?

The most likely answer is that, as I mentioned previously, before dismissing a case on summary judgment, the usual procedure is to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to gather evidence through discovery.

Do you doubt that this is the usual procedure? Do you think the law contains an exception if the defendant is president of the United States? If so, I'd like to see a . . . CITE!!!!!!

Oh, and would you care to back up your claim that the judge had a personal interest in the case?

in other words . . . CITE!!!!!

To borrow a phrase that you like to throw around, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. (Although I expect you will do neither.)

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Bricker
And to implement this duty, the judges are permitted to ignore the rules of procedure and the law?

You are being naive or obtuse. At the very least the judge could have referred to the partisan hackery that was central to the case in a written opinion issued with her decision. She did not. She was content to be a Repub puppet. It may have been the easy way out, but it wasn't the honorable way out.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by lucwarm
In any event, I have seen no evidence at all that the Court's decisions were in any way improper.

The investigation into Clinton's blowjob was improper and in your heart you know it. We know it, too.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by Bricker
And to implement this duty, the judges are permitted to ignore the rules of procedure and the law?

I've already addressed this point in my previous response to you. She didn't have to ignore the rule of law to let everyone know what a puppet theater she was playing in.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
The investigation into Clinton's blowjob was improper and in your heart you know it. We know it, too.

Gosh, I would have loved to see you arguing Clinton's position in court:

"No, I can't cite any rule or statute to support my position, but I know in my heart that I'm right. And if the Court disagrees with me, it must be the result of bias."

_____________

And by the way, you still haven't answered my earlier questions:

(1) Are you claiming that what was allowed in Clinton's case was significantly different from what is routinely allowed in other sexual harassment cases?

(2) If so, what was different?

(3) If not, what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by lucwarm
Gosh, I would have loved to see you arguing Clinton's position in court:

"No, I can't cite any rule or statute to support my position, but I know in my heart that I'm right. And if the Court disagrees with me, it must be the result of bias."

If this were the blowjob courtroom and not a public discussion board, your point might have some merit.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
If this were the blowjob courtroom and not a public discussion board, your point might have some merit.

I have no idea what your point is. But I do know that in federal court, one is expected to support one's position with cites to case law, statutes, rules, etc. If you claim that a federal judge did something wrong, you ought to be able to back up that claim with such a cite.

_________________________________

And I notice you haven't taken a stab at my questions:

(1) Are you claiming that what was allowed in Clinton's case was significantly different from what is routinely allowed in other sexual harassment cases?

(2) If so, what was different?

(3) If not, what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
The suit, and you don't have to "study the papers carefully" to recall if you paid even basic attention to the news at the time, was about job discrimination. Let that sink in before you answer, Counselors. Job discrimination.Hey, peabrain, Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm) is the initial complaint filed by Paula Jones. It alleges four counts in the cause of action. Directly on point, is Count I, wherein the complaint says: Defendant Clinton, as Governor of Arkansas, acting under color of state law, discriminated against Plaintiff because of her gender by sexually harassing and assaulting her on May 8, 1991, and thereafter, and this deprived Jones of her right to equal protection of the law.She also alleged the creation of a hostile work environment, which is the hallmark of a sexual harrasment lawsuit. My God, you have some balls to get mouthy and upbraiding us, "legal beagles" when you are completely and utterly wrong.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
The Scaife/Klayman crack legal team (not "Jones", let's not be precious here) had no evidence to produce that their puppet plaintiff had experienced any job discrimination, much less that it was linked to Clinton's conduct, nor even that the alleged sexual incident had occurred. None That was the basis for dropping the suit once the judge finally asked if there was, in fact, anything to it, anything at all. Clear now, all you legal beagles? Yes? You too, Jodi? Good.The Devil, and apparently annoying jackasses, mix lies with the truth. The Judge dismissed the suit on the basis that Paula Jones could not state a claim for damages, NOT because it didn't happen, but because the evidence was insufficient to show quid pro quo, or hostile work environment that would allow a sexual harrasment claim under Title VII. If you have interest in in fighting your own ignorance, you can look it up here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/order040198.htm). Maybe somewhere in there you can find where the Judge says that there was no evidence that the sexual incident occured. I couldn't find it, so maybe you can clear that up.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Now then, why didn't the judge even ask such a basic question until something like two years after filing?Because, dipwad, the Judge did what every Judge presiding over a lawsuit does, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/#chapter_iii) and the orders of U.S. Supreme Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853)I'm sure in your eyes that makes her a biased, evil judge because she waited until she got the facts of the case before making a decision. How horribly improper of her. In her order dismissing the case, Judge Webber-Wright continuously cited to the discovery in making her determinations. Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Why did she fail to take any measures at all to enforce the defendant's right to presumption of innocence in the meantime?Presumption of innocence is in criminal cases. This was a civil case. Fucking idiot.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Was she totally unaware of the highly-public nature of the case and therefore did not try to maintain even the appearance of impartiality?Once again, you insist on slandering a federal judge with nothing more than a pile of bullshit. If it wasn't so fucking pathetic, it'd be laughable how you continue to refuse to give a single fucking cite for anything.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
If you have any more-presentable reason to offer other than what I've suggested, please state so.Because being a honest, conscientous, and ethical judge, Judge Webber-Wright followed the Rules of Civil Procedure, and decided to get the facts before making a ruling. How horrible of her, I know.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
If I don't enjoy the thought that the law can be so easily subverted to serve personal or political agendas either, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that it's possible and can happen. We've seen examples from at least one self-described lawyer here that even the basic facts of a case aren't all that important to some of you - and it's even scarier that this little ethicality problem can even exist down at your retail level of law, too. What the fuck are you talking about? The law was not subverted in this case, it was followed. By a Judge who you continue to slander despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, all the while refusing to provide one cite, or even one coherent argument, that the Judge was biased.

Another funny thing, is Clinton actually paid Jones $850,000 for the case. Must have been pretty a pretty frivoulous lawsuit to only get $850,000. And neither Clinton, nor Ferguson, filed a motion pursuant to Rule 11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm). Go figure.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Hamlet
She also alleged the creation of a hostile work environment, which is the hallmark of a sexual harrasment lawsuit.Hello? McFly? The suit charged job discrimination, as I said. You might, however, notice the total lack of evidence for such a claim, no matter how worded. That is the point, and it should be no surprise that you don't get it.

The Judge dismissed the suit on the basis that Paula Jones could not state a claim for damages, NOT because it didn't happen, but because the evidence was insufficient to show quid pro quo, or hostile work environment that would allow a sexual harrasment claim under Title VII. Which is what I said, nutknuckle. The Scaife/Klayman team had zero evidence that it happened, and even if it had, it still wouldn't have added up to jack. You clearly aren't aware of it, but you're agreeing with me - how's that feel?

Anyway, that makes the case legally frivolous, as was obvious all along, although it certainly served its intended political-defamation and personal-harassment purposes, right? Purposes which the judge could not possibly have done more to facilitate. A judge is supposed to maintain control of the proceedings, right?

Maybe somewhere in there you can find where the Judge says that there was no evidence that the sexual incident occured.That isn't what I said either, Pettifog. No, she didn't say it didn't happen, just that the plaintiff couldn't provide any evidence whatever to say that it had. Which is true, and, AGAIN, is what I said. Try taking some lessons in "careful reading" from Jodi. Oh, wait ...

Because, dipwad, the Judge did what every Judge presiding over a lawsuit does, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/#chapter_iii) and the orders of U.S. Supreme Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853)What, another case of yet another lawyer being blissfully unaware of the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law? Why do I keep having to bring this up with you sleazebags - do they drum concepts of morality out of you in law school, or do you have to not give a shit to even consider the career in the first place?

I'm sure in your eyes that makes her a biased, evil judge because she waited until she got the facts of the case before making a decision.You're not helping yourself avoid looking like an idiot here. No, she did not "wait for the facts", she waited to even ask if there were any, waited until all possible damage to the defendant had already been done. Get the idea now, fool?

Presumption of innocence is in criminal cases. This was a civil case.A convenient abbreviation for a common concept. Would you be happier with "presumption of nonliability"? How about "equal protection" - did you go to class that day?

Another funny thing, is Clinton actually paid Jones $850,000 for the case. Still well below the lawyers' fees - good thing Scaife could afford it, huh? And Jones got her thank-you presents well before that, too. You know damn well this was a political case, in which the defendant had no way out except to end it as quickly as possible - surely you're aware of the concept of a nuisance settlement?

Fuckin' morons. No wonder the US legal profession is such a joke around the rest of the civilized world.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Hello? McFly? The suit charged job discrimination, as I said. You might, however, notice the total lack of evidence for such a claim, no matter how worded. That is the point, and it should be no surprise that you don't get it.Your inability to grasp a single, simple point, that being that the case was a sexual harassment case, is no longer suprising. Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Which is what I said, nutknuckle. The Scaife/Klayman team had zero evidence that it happened, and even if it had, it still wouldn't have added up to jack. You clearly aren't aware of it, but you're agreeing with me - how's that feel?If you were correct, I have no problem agreeing with you. It's when you say something that is correct, i/e that Judge Webber-Wright dismissed the case because she felt the injury to Jones wasn't enough, and mix it with a complete and utter falsehood, i/e that Judge Webber-Wright made a finding that the event didn't occur. Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Anyway, that makes the case legally frivolous, as was obvious all along, although it certainly served its intended political-defamation and personal-harassment purposes, right?Against my better judgment, I will take one more stab at trying to get through your armor of partisan ignorance, and point out that the case was not found to be "frivolous" by any court that heard it, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Purposes which the judge could not possibly have done more to facilitate. A judge is supposed to maintain control of the proceedings, right?I quit. The simple ability to read a post, click on a link, and use one fucking synapse to process an argument is beyond you. The Judge did her job, well and ethically, without one hint of bias against Clinton. I've provided you with a plethora of cites and arguments that she did, and you remain wrapped in your blissful idiocy. Congratulations.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
That isn't what I said either, Pettifog. No, she didn't say it didn't happen, just that the plaintiff couldn't provide any evidence whatever to say that it had. Which is true, and, AGAIN, is what I said. Try taking some lessons in "careful reading" from Jodi. Oh, wait ...I'm getting beyond the point where you are are being stupid and getting into the realm of you being a LYING SACK OF SHIT. Nowhere in the opinion did Judge Webber-Wright ever, ever, ever say such a thing. Read the fucking opinion, you fuckhead. It ain't there. Fucking liar.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
What, another case of yet another lawyer being blissfully unaware of the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law? Why do I keep having to bring this up with you sleazebags - do they drum concepts of morality out of you in law school, or do you have to not give a shit to even consider the career in the first place?Fuck you. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Fuck you. I can handle disagreements, I can handle you being a complete idiot. What I really have a problem with is when you disparage my professional reputation. Despite the fact you have the credibility of a dead rat, it still bugs me. So, Fuck off.
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
You're not helping yourself avoid looking like an idiot here. No, she did not "wait for the facts", she waited to even ask if there were any, waited until all possible damage to the defendant had already been done. Get the idea now, fool?Once again, your ignorance come flying out. If you'd bother to read any of the cite provided, or do any research at all, you would understand that you are, to no one's surprise, completely wrong again. Color me shocked.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
A convenient abbreviation for a common concept.You were still wrong.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Still well below the lawyers' fees - good thing Scaife could afford it, huh? And Jones got her thank-you presents well before that, too. You know damn well this was a political case, in which the defendant had no way out except to end it as quickly as possible - surely you're aware of the concept of a nuisance settlement?Sure. I'm also aware that the nuisance had already, for the most part, occured. Why the fuck did he settle AFTER lying under oath, and fighting and having the case dismissed? He fought the case for 4 years, WON, got the case dismissed, and then still gave Jones the $850,000.
And I will say this once again, and I'll try to go very slowly for you: Bill Clinton lied under oath. No amount of your ignorance is going to change that. Blame everyone else, but it doesn't change that simple fact.Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Fuckin' morons. No wonder the US legal profession is such a joke around the rest of the civilized world. Blow me, asswipe. None of my arguments have changed or been shown wrong. You haven't provided one cite that Judge Webber Wright was biased, and I provide 2 that she wasn't. You've gone out of your way to unapologetically slander a federal judge, and I've provided more cites that she, in fact, was doing her job well, and ethically. And you continue to blame a judge for the fact Clinton lied under oath. You are either the most delusional person I've met on these boards, or you are one of the most continuously ignorant. I'll split the difference and say you're both.

[ElvisL1ves]

When you have neither the evidence nor the law on your side, pound the table.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
When you have neither the evidence nor the law on your side, pound the table. And when you have the IQ of a squid, the legal knowledge of a tire iron, and the critical thinking skills of a mushroom, come up with a pithy saying without rebutting a single thing.

You're one class act, ElvisL1ves.

[Evil Captor]

Originally posted by lucwarm
I have no idea what your point is. But I do know that in federal court, one is expected to support one's position with cites to case law, statutes, rules, etc. If you claim that a federal judge did something wrong, you ought to be able to back up that claim with such a cite.

I am looking at this from the Big Picture viewpoint -- within the context of all the Repub did to smear Clinton, from the little elves to the impeachment. The sexual harassment case was part and parcel of it, as was obvious to any impartial observer. You keep desperately attempting to make people believe that so long as the court followed the right procedures, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been part of the conspiracy to smear Clinton. You may fool people who weren't around back then, and I'm sure those partisans who share your viewpoint will gladly agree with you -- but no one else will.

It doesn't matter whether or not the judge scrupulously adhered to proper court procedures or not. Whether a vile thing is done according to the letter of the law, or outside the law, it is still a vile thing. And a judge who sits in such a political maelstorm and allows her court to be so used ... like some guys use kleenex when they watch porn ... means the court itself was biased. In that sense. Got it? Of course not. You never will.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
I am looking at this from the Big Picture viewpoint -- within the context of all the Repub did to smear Clinton, from the little elves to the impeachment.

It's obvious you are looking at the "Big Picture." That's why you cannot focus on the issue at hand.

There is no question that a lot of people tried to smear Clinton. But it does not logically follow that the judge was biased.

You keep desperately attempting to make people believe that so long as the court followed the right procedures, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been part of the conspiracy to smear Clinton.

Gah. Spare me your strawmen arguments. It's possible that the court was part of a conspiracy, there's just no evidence of it.

Ask yourself -- why do you continue to evade my questions?

(1) Are you claiming that what was allowed in Clinton's case was significantly different from what is routinely allowed in other sexual harassment cases?

(2) If so, what was different?

(3) If not, what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

You may fool people who weren't around back then, and I'm sure those partisans who share your viewpoint will gladly agree with you -- but no one else will.

I'd love to see ONE lawyer here try to defend your position.

It doesn't matter whether or not the judge scrupulously adhered to proper court procedures or not. Whether a vile thing is done according to the letter of the law, or outside the law, it is still a vile thing.

Perhaps, but your claim is that the judge was BIASED. Assuming for the sake of argument that what took place was a "vile thing," it does not follow that the judge was biased.

See, what some people consider injustices take place all the time in our legal system. For example, if you file your case a day late because your car broke down on the way to the courthouse, the judge will dismiss the case. Even if it's a really good case, the plaintiff is a penniless widow, and the defendant is an evil tycoon.

The judge in such a case simply does not have discretion to ignore such an issue. Ultimately, the legislature has determined that justice will be better served for all if "statutes of limitations" are implemented and strictly enforced.

Similarly, Congress and the Supreme Court have decided that our court system should have liberal discovery rules. What this means is that, as a practical matter, plaintiffs can go into court with relatively flimsy allegations and get the opportunity to depose defendants, demand documents, etc. Of course it results in injustice and inconvenince in many cases, but the determination has been made that in general, justice will be better served with liberal discovery rules.

Frankly, I am not sure who decided that America should have liberal discovery rules, but your beef is with that person -- not with Judge Webber. In any event, I would speculate that the Republicans would be all too happy to pass legislation allowing judges to dismiss cases quickly without giving plaintiffs a chance at discovery.

Got it? Of course not. You never will.

Of course not. However, it is you who are ignorant -- not me. Ask yourself, why do you continue to evade the questions I have asked you?

(1) Are you claiming that what was allowed in Clinton's case was significantly different from what is routinely allowed in other sexual harassment cases?

(2) If so, what was different?

(3) If not, what is the basis for your claim that the judge's decisions were the result of bias?

____________

And one more question: Do you have any reason to believe that Judge Webber would have acted differently had the defendant been a Republican President?

[Hamlet]

Because ElvisL1ves appears to be too uneducated to make a proper argument, and because I want all the information out so people can make up their own mind, I will attempt to make his argument for him.

The gist, as I understand it, is that Judge Webber-Wright was biased because she did not dismiss the lawsuit prior to discovery. After losing the issue of Presidential Immunity before the United State's Supreme Court, Clinton filed a motion to dismiss the case on the pleadings. The judge issued a 20 page ruling, which can be found at Jones v. Clinton, 974 F.Supp. 712 (E.D.Ark.,1997.) I apologize I couldn't find the text of the opinion online for free. Judge Webber-Wright granted his motion in part, and dismissed it in part. I believe Elvis is trying to argue that because she didn't dismiss it in full, she was biased. Putting aside the obvious faulty logic of arguing that she was biased due only to the outcome of the ruling, Elvis could, if he had one iota of intelligence, argue that the ruling itself was wrong.

Judge Webber-Wright outlined the legal standards in determining whether to grant or deny Clinton's motion to dismiss, and stated: Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought after the pleadings are closed and is to be analyzed under the same standards that would have been employed had the motion been brought as a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). St. Paul Ramsey County Med. Ctr. v. Pennington County, 857 F.2d 1185, 1187-88 (8th Cir.1988). See also Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990); James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 12.38 (3d ed.1997). In considering such a motion, all facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true. Doe v. Norwest Bank Minn., N.A., 107 F.3d 1297, 1303-04 (8th Cir.1997). The complaint should be reviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, McMorrow v. Little, 109 F.3d 432, 434 (8th Cir.1997), and should not be dismissed unless it is clear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no *719 set of facts thereunder which would entitle him or her to relief. Hafley v. Lohman, 90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1149, 117 S.Ct. 1081, 137 L.Ed.2d 216 (1997). A motion to dismiss is not a device for testing the truth of what is asserted or for determining whether the plaintiff has any evidence to back up what is in the complaint. ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Barr, 952 F.2d 457, 467 (D.C.Cir.1991). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims, irrespective of a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations or a judge's belief that the plaintiff cannot prove what the complaint asserts. Id. See also Hickman v. Tosco Corp., 840 F.2d 564, 565 (8th Cir.1988); Fusco v. Xerox Corp., 676 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, a motion to dismiss should be granted " 'as a practical matter ... only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.' " Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)).Judge Wright cited not less than 10 separate cases, which shows she, unlike Elvis actually does research and provides cites.

Judge Webber-Wright then discussed each of the Counts that Jones had alleged, and ended up dismissing two counts (a due process claim and a defamation claim) and not dismissing the sexual harassment claim under equal protection, the conspiracy claim, and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her full and complete rationale, including additional citations, can be found in the case, but the one that Elvis seems to have the biggest problem with is the one that eventually led to the dismissial after discovery. Judge Webber-Wright ruled that Contrary to the President's assertions, then, plaintiff has alleged that there was a threat, has alleged that she suffered a tangible job detriment, and has alleged that there was a causal relationship between her rejection of the Governor's alleged sexual advances and the harm she allegedly suffered. Whatever may become of these allegations, they suffice at this time to state a prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Finally, Judge Webber-Wright went on to state that: Nothing in this Memorandum Opinion and Order should be construed as indicating how this Court will rule on any motion for summary judgment on the issues that remain in this case after today's decision. The standards governing motions for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 are quite different from those under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and 12(b)(6), and the resolution of any such motion will depend in large part on the evidence or lack thereof that is revealed by discovery. If I thought it would do any good to highlight this in blue and purple so Elvis may actually pay attention and think critically about it, I would. At it's most basic, Judge Webber-Wright's ruling came down to that Jones had alleged enough in the pleadings to allow the case to go forward to discovery.

Now, Elvis seems to be arguing that this ruling was improper, that the case should have been dismissed at this point. After reading the ruling, and researching the cases, I find absolutely no credibility to this argument. The ruling, as I, and pretty much everyone who took the time and effort to read and understand it, is intelligent, well-written, and completely in line with precedent. There is nothing, and I'll repeat, NOTHING to indicate that Judge Webber-Wright ruled incorrectly, or had any kind of bias agasint anyone. Allegations to the contrary, are spurrious at best, and the product of continued ignorance at worst.