Dear Partisan scandalmeisters of America:

[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.

---- 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. [sub]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”.[/sub]

---

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] [sub]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.[/sub]

[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.

[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.