This approach works both ways, IMHO. If the Clintons had cooperated with the initial Whitewater investigation by Congress, they would not have ultimately been forced to succumb to the political pressure and agree with calls that an independent investigator be appointed. Then, if they had cooperated with Ken Starr’s office from the beginning, Whitewater would have blown over. They didn’t. It didn’t.
Then Paula Jones’ case came up. Again, Clinton didn’t cooperate with investigators. IIRC, the justice department made some portions of the Jones case part of Starr’s pervue. The investigations dragged along as files were lost, found; memories lapsed, were refreshed; is isn’t or might be, if. All the while, Starr is looking (per his job description) for presidential misconduct, and Clinton, unwisely, provided some.
Ultimately, Starr was given enough investigative leeway by Reno’s justice department to include investigating reports that the president committed perjury (doesn’t matter if it was about a haircut, he lied to a grand jury). Turns out he did.
“I honestly believe that had we turned over the documents to The Washington Post in late 1993, we would not have had this hunt in the press for the documents and hunting down the Clintons. We never would have had an Independent Counsel appointed in 1994. There would never have been a Ken Starr. And there might have been a Monica Lewinsky in Bill Clinton’s life, but I don’t think we ever would have heard about her.”
ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos
“I took a somewhat different tack to get to the same end. I agreed with the president. “Mr. President, you’re right. The Post has been unfair. All the press has been unfair. They’ve been out to get you from the start. All the more reason to give them this right now. Don’t give an excuse. Instead, let’s just give them the documents, then we’ll move on. And you won’t open yourself up to the cover-up charge.””
About the independent counsel:
“We’re either going to get it imposed on us or we can ask for it ourselves. The only way to get to appear that we’re not hiding anything is simply to ask for it and move on. Everybody’s agreeing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Then Hillary walks in. Everybody goes silent. And since I had been the last one talking, I felt like it was sort of a manner of honor to then say to her what I had just been saying when she wasn’t in the room. I made this case that we had to go forward, that we had no choice anymore but to go for a special counsel. And, man, she just jumped down my throat, and basically said, “You never believed in us. You never stood for us. We were all alone in New Hampshire,” and it was fierce and chilling.”
The President has no special rights. Not one. He obviously has particular privileges and specific powers – those come with any job. MY job has particular powers and privileges. However, the President has no RIGHTS that any other American citizen doesn’t have. I refer you to the Constitution of the United States, which has nothing in Article II that suggests the President in anything more than an equal American who occupies that job.
The whole point to having a nation based on equality and the rule of law is that at a fundamental level, with respect to civil rights, the President and Joe Shmo are the same.
I find it quite amazing you think I don’t see that when I said nothing about it and it wasn’t even brought up. Are you psychic? How do you know what my opinions are with respect to the specifics of the case itself? Perhaps you read my mind.
The specific of the case should be decided by a court of law, because that’s the law. If the case is trivial or clearly for the purpose of sheer harassment, it should be thrown out on those points alone – but it should be thrown out on those points alone no matter who it’s filed against, the President or Joe Shmo. It should NOT be thrown out because of who it’s filed against. The United States is not a monarchy; it is a state based on the universality of the rule of law and the fundamental equality of all people. The President MUST be subject to the law in the same manner as all other Americans or else the rule of law is being broken. The President’s “convenience” and “distraction” are minor issues compared with the overwhelming importance of the rule of law.
I should remind you of something; while you may have a wicked case of Soccer Fan Syndrome when it comes to the Democrat/Republican holy war, I don’t. I’m neither. To be honest I don’t even know a lot about the Paula Jones case. It does sound quite silly to me. My only point is that no citizen should be exempt from the law, no matter what, EVER. That includes President Clinton.
Uhh… yes, they’re protected BY LAW. The rule of law is obviously being respected if this LAW is being upheld. The rule of law always comes before everything else, and when it doesn’t, things go to shit. In any event, the purpose of the Act you describe is not to keep servicepeople from being “distracted.” It’s to protect them from being sued at a time when it is logistically impossible for them to defend themselves in court because they’re permanently indisposed
There is, conversely, no such law protecting the President. If you don’t like the absence of such a law, I suggest you campaign to have one written. But there wasn’t one written when Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton. The law must apply.
With all due respect to Mr. Bugliosi, who by all accounts is a smart man, I certainly hope he wrote more than you quoted, because his arguments here are so weak and in defiance of the actual facts I’m a bit appalled. He makes two highly illogical arguments:
Argument one is that the Supreme Court erred in deciding that Paula Jones’s “individual interests” outweighed the “rights of 260 million Americans” to have a “full-time President.”
First of all, that is not what they decided at all. What they decided was that President William J. Clinton was an American citizen with no more rights than anyone else, and that therefore another American citizen had the right to sue him. That decision is precisely in accordance with the law. Their decision had nothing to do with deciding anything about Paula Jones’s “interests.” That is a matter for the courts to decide when the lawsuit is heard, or for a judge to decide during pretrial hearings, or whatever. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this regard is in EXACT accordance with the Constitution of the United States and all relevant precedent. To rule otherwise would have been to ignore the law, which is not the Supreme Court’s job.
Secondly, the American people do NOT have a right to “Have a full-time President be undistracted and undiverted from his duties.” First of all, there is no such “right” and no law suggesting there is. Secondly, that is obviously a ridiculous proposition, since every one of the 43 men who has served as President has been distracted and diverted from his duties on a daily basis. Being distracted and diverted from his duties is part of the President’s life, unless he’s an android. This is an entirely subjective argument on Mr. Bugliosi’s part. I appreciate it if he thinks it’s unfortunate that the President can be distracted, but the LAW must take precedence. Being distracted is part of life, but in any case it is not the purpose of the Constitution of the United States to shield the President from distraction.
As to his claim that it would not happen in any other country, that is irrelevant. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rule on what happened in Zanzibar. It is the Supreme Court’s job to rule on the law. There is no law that even remotely supports your argument. When there IS such a law, you’ll have a point.
Mr. Bugliosi’s second argument is that the country was “diminished” because the President was “diminished.” So what? What law is there against that? Does that mean they should ban the publication of stories about Dubya’s coke-snorting escapades? That diminishes the President, doesn’t it? How about jokes about how dumb he is? Doesn’t that diminish the President? Whether or not Clinton was “diminished” by the lawsuit is an entirely subjective matter and it is not the place of the Supreme Court to rule based on it. If some guy in Japan is laughing about it, who cares? What does that matter before the law?
I find it curious that Mr. Bugliosi would choose to completely ignore the issues of rule of law and the equality of all Americans before the law, which is why I can’t help but feel you left something out.
If you don’t think the Cosntitution of the United States is a good piece of backup in a discussion on American law, I don’t think you have a firm grasp of the issues.
This is easy; because it upholds the rule of law.
The rule of law is the basis of a civilized nation. It is the fundamental, underlying principle that supports democracy, freedom, and justice. Nothing is more important. Notions of “convenience” or “distraction” or “enhancing the function of government” are all mere details. The rule of law is of paramount importance, and it must be adhered to. You will find that a nation’s level of freedom, prosperity, peace and success is invariably directly proportional the to extent to which it respects the rule of law. Ignore the rule of law and things start to go to shit.
In fact, adhering to the rule of law is THE REASON THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS! The only reason to have an independent judiciary in the first place is to prevent the executive and legislative branches from ignoring the law. If the Supreme Court decides to ignore the law, only bad things can result. It is asinine to suggest that the Supreme Court should have made a decision that is exactly contrary to the laws of the United States, and yet that appears to be precisely what you are suggesting.
In this case, we’re not just talking about any law, either. We’re talking about the all-important notion that the law applies equally to all people. That’s one of the basic tenets your country is founded on, for God’s sake. We may have to agree to disagree, but in my opinion it’s worth any amount of distraction to retain the fundamental values of equality and rule of law. Bill Clinton’s convenience and job effectiveness are less important than the rule of law because EVERYTHING is less important than the rule of law. The rule of law is the single most important part of a civilized nation and cannot be ignored for any reason.
I’m a woman, too. And let me tell ya, I don’t see how you can say that a co-worker exposing his dick to you is “all in a day’s work.”
No, it’s NOT all in a day’s work.
As a woman, I would hope that you would be a little more sensitive to the matter of sexual impropriety. Or perhaps the sheer number of times you were molested, attacked, raped, and harrassed has made you completely insensitive to the matter. Whatever the reason, your position on this as “all in a day’s work in the battle of the sexes” is DEFENSELESS.
Imagine, if you can, being escorted to a high-ranking politician’s hotel room by a state patrolman and then having the politician “request” a blow job? Whether or not Bill Clinton actually raped her or fired her from her job is not really the issue here. What IS relevant is that the THREAT of both existed. And that’s why such an act would reflect so negatively on Bill Clinton.
Argue the merits of her case if you want. But, please, don’t tell me that a man exposing his “wee-wee” to you is no big deal.
The President has no special rights. Not one. He obviously has particular privileges and specific powers – those come with any job. MY job has particular powers and privileges. However, the President has no RIGHTS that any other American citizen doesn’t have. I refer you to the Constitution of the United States, which has nothing in Article II that suggests the President in anything more than an equal American who occupies that job.
The whole point to having a nation based on equality and the rule of law is that at a fundamental level, with respect to civil rights, the President and Joe Shmo are the same.
I find it quite amazing you think I don’t see that when I said nothing about it and it wasn’t even brought up. Are you psychic? How do you know what my opinions are with respect to the specifics of the case itself? Perhaps you read my mind.
The specific of the case should be decided by a court of law, because that’s the law. If the case is trivial or clearly for the purpose of sheer harassment, it should be thrown out on those points alone – but it should be thrown out on those points alone no matter who it’s filed against, the President or Joe Shmo. It should NOT be thrown out because of who it’s filed against. The United States is not a monarchy; it is a state based on the universality of the rule of law and the fundamental equality of all people. The President MUST be subject to the law in the same manner as all other Americans or else the rule of law is being broken. The President’s “convenience” and “distraction” are minor issues compared with the overwhelming importance of the rule of law.
I should remind you of something; while you may have a wicked case of Soccer Fan Syndrome when it comes to the Democrat/Republican holy war, I don’t. I’m neither. To be honest I don’t even know a lot about the Paula Jones case. It does sound quite silly to me. My only point is that no citizen should be exempt from the law, no matter what, EVER. That includes President Clinton.
Uhh… yes, they’re protected BY LAW. The rule of law is obviously being respected if this LAW is being upheld. The rule of law always comes before everything else, and when it doesn’t, things go to shit. In any event, the purpose of the Act you describe is not to keep servicepeople from being “distracted.” It’s to protect them from being sued at a time when it is logistically impossible for them to defend themselves in court because they’re permanently indisposed
There is, conversely, no such law protecting the President. If you don’t like the absence of such a law, I suggest you campaign to have one written. But there wasn’t one written when Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton. The law must apply.
With all due respect to Mr. Bugliosi, who by all accounts is a smart man, I certainly hope he wrote more than you quoted, because his arguments here are so weak and in defiance of the actual facts I’m a bit appalled. He makes two highly illogical arguments:
Argument one is that the Supreme Court erred in deciding that Paula Jones’s “individual interests” outweighed the “rights of 260 million Americans” to have a “full-time President.”
First of all, that is not what they decided at all. What they decided was that President William J. Clinton was an American citizen with no more rights than anyone else, and that therefore another American citizen had the right to sue him. That decision is precisely in accordance with the law. Their decision had nothing to do with deciding anything about Paula Jones’s “interests.” That is a matter for the courts to decide when the lawsuit is heard, or for a judge to decide during pretrial hearings, or whatever. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this regard is in EXACT accordance with the Constitution of the United States and all relevant precedent. To rule otherwise would have been to ignore the law, which is not the Supreme Court’s job.
Secondly, the American people do NOT have a right to “Have a full-time President be undistracted and undiverted from his duties.” First of all, there is no such “right” and no law suggesting there is. Secondly, that is obviously a ridiculous proposition, since every one of the 43 men who has served as President has been distracted and diverted from his duties on a daily basis. Being distracted and diverted from his duties is part of the President’s life, unless he’s an android. This is an entirely subjective argument on Mr. Bugliosi’s part. I appreciate it if he thinks it’s unfortunate that the President can be distracted, but the LAW must take precedence. Being distracted is part of life, but in any case it is not the purpose of the Constitution of the United States to shield the President from distraction.
As to his claim that it would not happen in any other country, that is irrelevant. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rule on what happened in Zanzibar. It is the Supreme Court’s job to rule on the law. There is no law that even remotely supports your argument. When there IS such a law, you’ll have a point.
Mr. Bugliosi’s second argument is that the country was “diminished” because the President was “diminished.” So what? What law is there against that? Does that mean they should ban the publication of stories about Dubya’s coke-snorting escapades? That diminishes the President, doesn’t it? How about jokes about how dumb he is? Doesn’t that diminish the President? Whether or not Clinton was “diminished” by the lawsuit is an entirely subjective matter and it is not the place of the Supreme Court to rule based on it. If some guy in Japan is laughing about it, who cares? What does that matter before the law?
I find it curious that Mr. Bugliosi would choose to completely ignore the issues of rule of law and the equality of all Americans before the law, which is why I can’t help but feel you left something out.
If you don’t think the Cosntitution of the United States is a good piece of backup in a discussion on American law, I don’t think you have a firm grasp of the issues.
This is easy; because it upholds the rule of law.
The rule of law is the basis of a civilized nation. It is the fundamental, underlying principle that supports democracy, freedom, and justice. Nothing is more important. Notions of “convenience” or “distraction” or “enhancing the function of government” are all mere details. The rule of law is of paramount importance, and it must be adhered to. You will find that a nation’s level of freedom, prosperity, peace and success is invariably directly proportional the to extent to which it respects the rule of law. Ignore the rule of law and things start to go to shit.
In fact, adhering to the rule of law is THE REASON THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS! The only reason to have an independent judiciary in the first place is to prevent the executive and legislative branches from ignoring the law. If the Supreme Court decides to ignore the law, only bad things can result. It is asinine to suggest that the Supreme Court should have made a decision that is exactly contrary to the laws of the United States, and yet that appears to be precisely what you are suggesting.
In this case, we’re not just talking about any law, either. We’re talking about the all-important notion that the law applies equally to all people. That’s one of the basic tenets your country is founded on, for God’s sake. We may have to agree to disagree, but in my opinion it’s worth any amount of distraction to retain the fundamental values of equality and rule of law. Bill Clinton’s convenience and job effectiveness are less important than the rule of law because EVERYTHING is less important than the rule of law. The rule of law is the single most important part of a civilized nation and cannot be ignored for any reason.
I’m a woman, too. And let me tell ya, I don’t see how you can say that a co-worker exposing his dick to you is “all in a day’s work.”
No, it’s NOT all in a day’s work.
As a woman, I would hope that you would be a little more sensitive to the matter of sexual impropriety. Or perhaps the sheer number of times you were molested, attacked, raped, and harrassed has made you completely insensitive to the matter. Whatever the reason, your position on this as “all in a day’s work in the battle of the sexes” is DEFENSELESS.
Imagine, if you can, being escorted to a high-ranking politician’s hotel room by a state patrolman and then having the politician “request” a blow job? Whether or not Bill Clinton actually raped her or fired her from her job is not really the issue here. What IS relevant is that the THREAT of both existed. And that’s why such an act would reflect so negatively on Bill Clinton.
Argue the merits of her case if you want. But, please, don’t tell me that had Clinton indeed exposed his “wee-wee” to Paula Jones, it really isn’t a big deal.
Errr… Zoff? When did “some folks” come to mean “Zoff”? I was speaking in generalities, only partly in response to your statements. If I mean to be addressing and assuming things about you specifically, I can assure you I will do exactly as I’m doing now, and address you directly.
Well, it’s not mine, because I’m not qualified and don’t pretend to be. It’s Vincent Bugliosi’s. That name may not mean anything in your neck of the woods, but it commands a tremendous amount of respect in mine. (Los Angeles) He was the prosecutor who managed to get Charles Manson put away for murder, even though the man wasn’t even at the crime scene. We accept it as a given now, it was no mean feat at the time. He also wrote a very good book analyzing the gross ineptitude of the OJ Simpson prosecution, and in general seems to have an excellent grasp arcane legal concepts, never mind simple ones.
The legal arguments he makes make perfect sense to me. They also make perfect “common” sense to me. And with all due respect, I still haven’t seen that “common” sense refuted. ** Your ** “argument”,
Is pretty flawed in my book, because there is no argument that I can see. And he isn’t really “just a person”, he is the embodiment of an entire branch of or three-branched governement.
I disagree with this unsupported assertion. Why is it unwise? What will happen? The sky will fall? No one is suggesting he be given a lifetime version of diplomatic immunity, we are suggesting that his work is *at least * as critical to the nation’s well-being as that of the people in the armed forces, and that, like them, he should have CIVIL matters postponed until he is, so to speak, a civilian! He has more important things to do than fight off lawsuits. Bugliosi’s argument is dead on target: balance of interest. It’s in Paula’s interest to (gag) “be made whole”. So the whole country has to go through what we went through for one woman who had to look at a penis?
And let us not forget, we STILL don’t know for sure, and certainly did not then (although I’m not suggesting it’s unlikely) whether he actually did what he was accused of or not. That would be the point of the lawsuit. If it’s such a swell idea to leave presidents vulnerable to civil lawsuits, what’s to stop pissy citizens (or conspiracies!) from filing lawsuit after lawsuit, just to cripple a president? Plenty of harm there, again, to the whole country. None that I can see in waiting.
Well, my first reaction to this is “Boo-friggin-hoo” – see above for why it ONE person is not as important as the ** whole country **. But after I get over being dismissive and completely unsympathetic, I say this: preparations can go on, depositions can be taken, you make the best of it. Life is often unfair. But let’s make the smartest, fairest choices possible, and in this case the best choice is to protect us all by leaving our president alone until he’s no longer one third of our government, and is again, just a person .
Once more, with feeling: no one suggested “immunity”, merely postponement. Just like the armed forces.
Somethings really are more important than one person’s need to get money for an unpleasant experience.
RickJay, I tried to make that exact point in my previous post. The president is accrued no special rights or privileges by the laws of the United States. Stoid, rather than actually debate that issue, or back her claims with some facts, chose to focus on a straw man and then simply repeat her false claims. Although I don’t expect her to ever address this dispute, I’m glad you brought it up again. And I’m going to make another appeal, too.
Stoid, care to comment on this? Care to back up your statement? I won’t even ask you for a cite. How 'bout just a list of these “special rights” the president is lawfully accorded. Either post them, or retract your statement. Be aware though, once it’s been proved the president has no special rights under the law, your entire argument falls down. He’s then a citizen and subject to the rules and laws the rest of us are.
Seems to me this is about the best possible example of a subjective matter as you could name. In my subjective opinion, it’s no big deal. if she were 12, I’d have a big problem with it. If he had threatened her in any way, I’d have a problem with it. If she’d in any way suffered for her refusal, I’d have a problem with it.
As it is, I think it was unpleasant behavior. He acted like an idiot and a jerk. Let her sue him for it. After he’s left office.
And as for the whole topic of sexual assault, it is in fact because of my experiences that I resent the way so many things that I consider low-level stupidity are turned into “crises” where a woman needs to be “made whole” - oh please! It demeans real experiences of harassment, assault and rape. I resent the way political correctness between the genders tends to infantilize women and portray them as helpless victims. Sometimes I think we’ve come no further than Miss PittyPat’s fainting at a widow taking the dance floor.
I’m a grown up. I can handle it if a stupid man whips out his weenie and asks me to give him a blowjob. I say, “no thanks!” and leave, I don’t end up traumatized. And any woman who does should get a grip. Newsflash: men behave badly. Learn to stand up for yourself. The mere appearance of a penis is NOT the equivalent of an assault. They are genitals, not billyclubs.
Again, if there had been any kinds of threats, force or concequences, that would be VERY different. But every description of what happened sounds very much to me like he was dumb enough to think that such behavior was welcome. (And might in fact have been…the stories differ. Again, let’s assume it wasn’t for the purposes of this argument). When he learned it wasn’t, the story came to an end.
What if a teacher flashed his shlong at a student? It’s inappropriate behavior.
Of course, I don’t know whether I even believe Paula Jones (my opinion is it was a stupid publicity stunt and Jones is a moron). BUT…whether a president shouldn’t be allowed to be sued?
Um, Stoid? What if it had been Dubya who did this?
Personally, I think the whole Monica/Paula/blow job crap was insane.
That doesn’t mean it’s okay for someone to flash their genitals at their employees. It’s very unprofessional behavior. Maybe not traumatic, but definitely embarassing.
Okay. He ought to have the privilege of not having to deal with lawsuits while in office. I’ve outlined why.
Postponed. Postponed. Postponed. Postponed.
Not exempt. Just allowed the special privilege of not having to deal with it until he’s out of office. Not for HIM, for US.
Because I have nothing to say about them. Contrary to popular opinion of me, I don’t have something to say about everything. I am ignorant of many things, either entirely or enough that I do not feel comfortable commenting. I only speak out when I have something to say that I believe in. I am utterly without opinion on Kosovo, and never pretended otherwise.
College professor and adult student, it’s inappropriate. High School or younger, it’s criminal.
I’d feel the same way, I just wouldn’t be making it point to say so. And I would be delighted that if something so wrong had to happen, it was happening to a man I despise. But I would never defend the legitimacy of it just because of that.
I completely agree. I am not advocating that men start whipping out their genitals, by any stretch. But let’s not act like they’ve pulled a gun out when they do. (Jeez, no wonder men are so phallically obsessed. Look at the energy we invest in that little lump of flesh….)
And others, much more intelligent than us, have outlined at length why not. Read the Federalist Papers.
C’mon, Stoid. Quit dodging the issue. Post those special presidential privileges for us. Relieve our ignorance. You can’t do it. Your entire argument is fatally flawed. And so is Clinton.
Since the multimilliondollar, multi-year, incredibly aggressive investigation failed to turn up anything except a blow job, I remain of the opinion that the blame lies at the feet of the Supreme Court.
If I recall correctly, it was primarily Hillary that resisted turning over docs. She was very resentful about the whole thing and felt it was a witch hunt, and as a result did not want to cooperate. That was a decision that turned out to be bad. Not because anybody did a damn thing wrong in fact, but because of the cascade of things that followed.
They were hunted from the minute they showed up. It was shameful. It was also what I was wondering about in part when I started this thread. What the hell did they do to be so despised * before they even got to Washington?* But they were, and a man that could have been a great president was instead nearly destroyed.
Clinton is certainly a man with serious flaws. But I’ve known of few powerful men who didn’t have serious flaws. He was just unfortunate enough to be president at a bad time in history.
If in your opinion he should be granted special privileges, fine. Campaign for them. But he presently is NOT GRANTED THEM. The law is the law, and you accused the Supreme Court of making the wrong decision when all they did was their job - they ruled on points of law. So would you mind explaining what your problem with the Supreme Court’s decision was? Don’t just quote Vincent Bugliosi.
If you have a problem with the lack of special rights for the President, your problem is with Congress.
Because I have nothing to say about them. **
[/QUOTE]
You do remember your own OP, right? You asked for what substantive issues people opposed Clinton on and I provided one. You implied that people who opposed Clinton did so absent any real things Clinton DID - I have shown this implication was incorrect.
Yes, you’ve said what you believe and whose arguments make more sense to you. However I still see no list which lawfully accords the president of those rights you think should be in place.
I’d have to. I’ve freely confessed that I am not an attorney or a legal scholar. I’ve read other’s arguments, I’ve read Bugliosi’s (and other people’s previously, as it was happening). I"ve explained why what those * experts * say makes sense to me and why I agree with them. If you want me to pretend that I am making brand new, fresh arguments based on my years of legal training, I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint you.
You inferred, I did not imply. I asked for the reasons, people gave them. I actually thanked people for sharing. I did not say in the OP that I was going to debate any and all reasons people gave. I just wanted to be sure that it wasn’t all about his personal behavior. It isn’t. I’m glad of that.