# Dear Partisan scandalmeisters of America: **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273 "2003-10-08T12:05:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/121 "2003-10-16T22:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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!” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/122 "2003-10-16T22:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/123 "2003-10-16T22:56:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*If you think that the court conducted an investigation, then it isn’t the court that is ignorant. 😃 \*\* They grilled Clinton about the blowjob and the meaning of “is.” What’s your point, if you have one? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/124 "2003-10-17T01:16:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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**??? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/125 "2003-10-17T13:44:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/126 "2003-10-17T15:14:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/127 "2003-10-20T05:01:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/128 "2003-10-20T10:31:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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.) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/129 "2003-10-20T11:27:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/130 "2003-10-20T11:29:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/131 "2003-10-20T11:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/132 "2003-10-20T12:46:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/133 "2003-10-20T13:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/134 "2003-10-20T13:45:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/135 "2003-10-20T15:37:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/136 "2003-10-20T18:53:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/137 "2003-10-20T19:55:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/138 "2003-10-21T12:43:16Z")
When you have neither the evidence nor the law on your side, pound the table. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/139 "2003-10-21T12:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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**. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273/140 "2003-10-21T13:10:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-partisan-scandalmeisters-of-america/206273.md?page=8)