You are right. That cite cuts off in the middle of the article for all but Salon Premium subscribers.
You can find the full article here. http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/2002/dh04-18-02.htm
Oh, please :rolleyes:. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Whatever else Clinton was, he was a completely political animal. It would be completely out of character for him to decline an easy opportunity to make a political headach like that lawsuit go away.
Do you have any evidence that an inexpensive settlement was available to him?
Dear Sua – what’s that old legal saying?
If you have the facts in your corner, pound the facts.
If you have the law in your corner, pound the law.
If you have neither, pound the table!
Sure hope your table is reinforced.
But, please, continue to split hairs over why a successful sex-trap should be allowed to bring down a president. I’m on pins and needles.
Hugs,
Ace
CHANCE –
Yeah, I freely admit to having very little “perspective” when it comes to perjury. Color that depressing if you want. Perjury is one of those issues where I’m very much an absolutist. If you are under oath, you may not lie. You may refuse to answer, but you may not lie. If you do, you’re basically ten pounds of lying shit in a five pound bag. This has nothing to do with him being a Democrat, by the way; I’d judge a perjuring Republican just as harshly. By nature, and as a lawyer, I don’t care what the motivation was for questioning him, I don’t care how inappropriate the questions were, and I don’t care what public opinion was or is about them. The first may be challenged before the deposition, the second may be handled by refusing to answer (and then having the questions ruled upon by the judge), and the third is largely irrelevant in discovery in a legal proceeding. I care that the man lied under oath. You admit this is legally relevant; I submit it is also morally relevant. I do not say it negates every positive thing that he ever did, but it is a very big deal to me, and I do not respect the man because of it. He perjured himself, and he brought huge amounts of disrespect down upon the office he held – an office I personally feel is worthy of enormous respect, whatever my personal opinion of the person holding it. I don’t care that you don’t agree with me; I don’t expect you to. I do expect you to recognize that for some people, his difficulties cannot be boiled down to sexual highjinks, and some who judge him harshly do so for reasons other than having a completely baffling lack of self-restraint.
And you may not be morally obligated to testify (even if legally obligated), but you clearly are morally obligated to refrain from lying. Your other option, of course, is to refuse to testify. You may be punished for it, but it remains a perfectly moral thing to do. Clinton surely knew this; he’s a lawyer.
TEJOTA –
To answer the last first – oh, sure it was. Let’s call a spade a spade. Lying under oath = perjury, regardless of whether prosecuted (or prosecutable) or not. Second, which is to say first, I don’t recognize a general principle of “needing to lie.” Certainly I reject such a principle when one is placed under oath and has sworn not to lie.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find me consistently defending Bush. The truth is, I don’t wade into political threads much any more. But you are right: My concern about lies is directly chiefly by the search for truth, and only secondarily with fairness (though I’m hard pressed to see how the two would ever conflict). Legal proceedings are ideally about seeking truth, and they should not be frustrated by witnesses who lie, much less lie under oath. And the “under oath” thing is important to me; if you swear by God or your own integrity not to do something, and then you do it, what does that say about your integrity?
But I am amused (though not surprised) by your assertion that a deposition is not a legal proceeding, when in fact if you were to say to the contestants “A legal proceeding taking place outside a courtroom,” nine out of ten would reply, “What is a deposition, Alex?” Of course it’s a legal proceeding. I’m also amused that you would assert that Clinton (or anyone else) has the “moral” right to judge the propriety of legal proceedings. I used to get that argument a lot, back when I was suing Freemen to make them remove bogus liens. I didn’t buy it from Joe Bob Crazy Guy in Assboink, and I don’t buy it from a Rhodes scholar lawyer.
Look, it’s not like we haven’t done this to death before. Y’all are saying, as you have before, “the perjury isn’t important!” For me, the perjury is hugely important. Bad dog. Very very bad dog. I set a lot of store in protecting the intergrity of judicial proceedings, and with seeing people act with intergrity when participating in judicial proceedings. So I don’t have to respect or approve of a lawyer who chooses to compound his bad judgment in the personal realm by perjuring himself in the professional one. And I don’t. Feel free to paint me as some slavering right-wing reactionary on that basis. Since ACE has already accused PLD of that, clearly he at least doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
December, I’m so proud of you! A cite, an actual cite!
Now, if only you could bother to do all the reading, you’d know the person in question backs Brock.
That’s getting it in the shorts, eh?
http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2002/04/30/conway/
But keep trying, kiddo, you’re bound to post something of substance any day now.
Almost all litigants will happily settle for a fraction of the ad damnum, in order to avoid the
trouble and expense of trial and possible subsequent appeals, as well as the uncertainty of the result. Even the full $750,000 was an amount Clinton could have easily raised.
E.g., last week he got $250,000 for a single speech in China.
When more than one source quotes GWB does that make it true?
Slate picked it up…
december, that’s not even close to being accurate. Had Clinton told the truth, he still would have won the Jones lawsuit.
Judge Wright dismissed Jones’ lawsuit on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In ruling on such a motion, Judge Wright was obliged to accept all of the allegations in Jones’ complaint as true, and rule on whether those allegations were legally sufficient to state a viable cause of action. Under this standard, any factual assertions made by Clinton - including his deposition testimony - were simply not considered.
Judge determined that Jones had not stated a cause of action against Clinton. On a quick search, I couldn’t find the opinion itself, but a found a Time magazine article with a pretty good summary:
Sua
Since the real object of the lawsuit was it’s political value, I think you need to show actual evidence that in this case, an settlement was available to him.
Jodi –
Preach it, sister!! Ya know, anecdotally, this is one of the places lawyers and lay persons part ways. I haven’t come across a single attorney, even die-hard Dems, who have sanctioned Clinton’s conduct in this matter.
I think it’s because we generally consider the worst thing was can (professionally) do is suborn perjury. To have a fellow attorney actually commit perjury defies belief.
Sua
I’m basically with you on this one Jodi. He may have been put in an “unfair” position, the people who put him in that position may have predicted he would lie, but he still chose to lie of his own free will 
-
She sued for a certain amount. IANAL, but if he offered that amount in settlement, I don’t believe the case could have gone to court.
-
Clinton never even tried to secure a settlement, or we would know it now. Whether or not an offer would have been accepted, the fact is that he chose to conspire to commit perjury rather than offer a settlement.
First of all, I would never call Clinton a man of integrity, any more than I would call Bush that.
But, I think you continue to miss the point. Clinton admitted that he his testimony was intentionally misleading. But I’ve read the actual testimony, and I can tell you. he told no actual lies in that deposition. He parsed his statement exceedingly carefully, (only could say lawyerly), but he told no direct lies.
That’s not perjury, that’s being a hostile witness. That’s the way the game is played. IANAL, but even I know that the law as actually practiced in this country, is more about games with rules than it is about a search for truth. One had only to watch the OJ trial or the Microsoft trial so see what the law really is.
When a political opponant uses the law in a cynical way as a weapon, there is no moral obligation to cooperate. Legal obligations remain, however. And as a practical matter, very few people seem to recognise the distinction between a lie and careful parsing of the truth with intent to deceive. [sub]You, for instance.[/sub] Try reading the actual transcript of the deposition sometime, It might surprise you.
december
Legal process extortion is a huge problem in this country. I’m disappointed to see that you endorse it.
Better and better, december. Not only do you ignore the fact that Clinton’s perjury was irrelevant to the outcome of the case, but you have magically transformed perjury (usually a misdemeanor) into a conspiracy (a felony).
Who, pray tell, did Clinton “conspire” with? The judge? :rolleyes:
Sua
december you made a factual assertion “Clinton could have settled for x$$”. back it up with data, facts, cites, not suppositions about what ‘generally’ happens, what you feel happened, what you think happened, what your favorite pundit supposed happened.
or, you could of course admit that you posted unsubstantiated crap again.
NIGHTIME –
Who are you, and why am I this handbasket?
TEJOTA –
Ah. I see. He intentionally mislead people, by twisting his words so that they were untruthful – there is no other construction to put on the term “mislead” – but he didn’t tell direct lies. This distinction matters to you? He didn’t lie! He just intentionally misled! I submit that you shouldn’t have to work that hard to defend the man, were his actions in this regard actuallly defensible.
Aw, bullshit. IAAL, and my profession isn’t about “games,” it’s about addressing grievances, determining their validity, and compensating people for their damages (in the civil realm). It’s about keeping society save, enforcing consequences, and punishing offenders (in a criminal realm). I do what I do because it interests me and it provides a service to my clients. Yes, there are rules in how law is practiced; they serve to streamline the process (everyone files motions in the same form, and under the same deadlines) and ensure fairness. For most of us, the day to day practice of law isn’t the OJ trial or the Microsoft trial – and it isn’t Clinton, who does not get a pass for being an unethical liar in a legal proceeding.
Bullshit again. Your subjective perception or opinion of the motivations of your opponent do not give you any right to avoid your duty as a citizen to cooperate in the legal process that would work on your behalf if the shoe was on the other foot. Certainly it provides no moral justification for the commission or suborning of perjury.
It is not that I do not see a distinction, it is that as a moral matter, I don’t think the distinction matters. You apparently give the man a pass for “merely” intentionally deceiving people while under oath. I do not. Period.
Oh, I have. Quite a while ago, though. I found very little to surprise me: “It depends what you mean by ‘sex;’ it depends what you mean by ‘is.’” Please. He sounds like what he was: Ten pounds of lying shit in a five pound bag. Couple that with his admission that he intended to mislead, and I really see no leg for him to stand on, either as a lawyer or as a person.
And frankly, I think you will find that if you attempt to defend that which is IMO pretty obviously indefensible, you will find yourself having much less credibility when you try to defend some action of his that’s actually worth your time to defend.
That should be “why am I in this handbasket.” Except it’s not funny once I repost it.
Hey, SUA and WRING, it’s 4:30 Friday in my world – what say to a beer?
Hijack much, folks? Oh I understand, nobody hardly ever talked about the Clinton stuff before, so it’s about time someone opened that can of worms… 
what an **excellent ** idea, Jodi ! Come on Sua last one in’s buyin’ 
I always appreciate your legal insights, Sua. I believe you that Clinton could have told the truth about Monica ans still won the Jones suit. Of couse, the suit was a kind of legal blackmail; since the implicit threaqt was too make public his extra-marital affair. Nevertheless, what I said was true. He chose to fight the suit and to commit perjury.
You asked about the conspiracy. He and Monica agreed to tell matching lies under oath. That’s in the tapes. Monica asked for a reward for her false testimony. She was offered her choice of a United Nations job or a position in the private sector through a friend of Clinton.
BTW the tapes show Monica pressuring Linda Tripp to commit matching perjury, although Clinton may not have known that she was doing this.
I have long wondered about Clinton’s motive for “firing a cannon at a gnat.”
I ignore it, becausre it doesn’t invalidate what I posted. For whatever reason, Clinton chose to commit perjury, which is what I said.
The Tripp tapes make it quite clear that Clinton and Lewinsky colluded to tell the same lies. If that’s a felony, so be it. He also appear to have rewarded her for her perjured testimony, which I presume may be a separate infraction.
Of course, the unfortunate precedent of Nixon being pardoned made it clear that Clinton would not be convicted of a crime, no matter what he did. The country would be a better place if Nixon had spent time in the slammer.