Yeah, tradesilicon, an example of Clinton’s inappropriate executive orders would be nice. I’d like to know about these, and as a bonus, actual examples could lead people to take your opinions seriously.
Further, I’d like an explanation as to why liberals would stick up for Clinton. What has Clinton ever done for liberals?
Transparencey should remain one of the pinnacle achievements of America’s government. The public’s right to information is one of the hallmarks of our democratic society. That any administration should seek to undermine it is nothing short of malfeasance. As to Shrub doing this, it comes as little or no surprise. Manipulation of public opinion in the absence of truly persuasive ability or facts seems to be a propensity of Republican politics (not that the Democrats don’t indulge as well).
This stunt reeks of everything I have always found distasteful about Bush 2.0. A willingness to push private agendas at the cost of our constitutional rights troubles him not in the least. Look no further than his blurring of the separation of church and state. Ashcroft’s assault on our freedom is just another button on the coat.
I just wanted to pass on a quote from John Adams, which I happened to have just read in the McCullough bio.
Adams wrote:
Is there much chance of a successful legal challenge to this executive order?
Just curious about this:
Those who defended Clinton’s lying under oath did so, in large measure, because the questioners had no right to ask the President questions about his personal life.
Now a President seeks to invoke executive power to keep his papers sealed. It’s unclear to me what percentage of the papers involved here are personal, and which are “business.” But if even ten percent of the presidential papers covered by this order involve personal matters, I’m curious why there isn’t a groundswell of support among the same people who defended Clinton.
My position? I think the Bush order in the OP undermines the spirit, if not the letter, of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and that any person becoming president after 1978 - that is, from Reagan onward - chose to give up his privacy as regards presidential papers. Bush’s act should be reversed by Congress, which should clarify the intent of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
It’s a highly inappropriate action, whatever his motivations might have been.
I thought that none of this was personal papers. Am I wrong? If I’m wrong, then I would support not revealing the personal ones. Aren’t they kept separate? I don’t give a hoot about Reagan’s personal life anyway.
“A government’s legitimacy is based on the trust of its people…”
Hearing these words from Clinton spokesman Bruce Lindsey does induce a certain amount of nausea, but Bush and his people deserve to get bashed on this. The decision to limit access to presidential papers stinks.
By the way, here’s a nice source of information on presidential executive orders.. Should be good for hours of fun and frolic.
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires that the Persidents personal papers be kept seperate from Presidential ones. Here’s a link that details the act.
Sheesh, they want cites. As if you doubt for a moment that BC used executive orders. OK fine, Here’s a complete list
Take your pick, and remember, I’m not arguing about the policies he is pushing themselves, rather the abuse of executive orders (by Any president).
Remember, these are supposed to be emergency powers, not the way to get around congress. I hate the mis-use of these powers even if it’s for policy I agree with - ie if Bush used one to increase our tax cut ;).
So this is an emergency? And this ?
Things like this I just don’t understand - why is this done through executive order? Is that simply the way to do these things, or is the president getting around congressional gridlock on this one?
Again, I think what Bush just did is rediculous, but please don’t make it sound like he alone is guilty of mis-using executive orders.
Since you invited me, I will say that I’m disappointed in Bush’s action. I believe in government openness. Citizens need to know what’s going on in our own government. I agree with all you Bush-haters. I want those papers released!
I also believe that powerful government officials should be held to the same laws as the rest of us. I regret that Nixon was pardoned. He deserved to go to prison. I regret that Clinton wasn’t prosecuted. He deserved time in the slammer as well.
Whether Bush is covering up corruption or just has different POV is something I don’t know. Anyone can indulge in speculation, but that’s all it is.
I’m of mixed mind on this. The law is dumb; 12 years is too short a time. Sure, the President has gone on to other things, but his advisors may still be in government, as in the present circumstance. Imagine an eighties-era memo from someone currently working for GWB calling for action to be taken against General Musharraf before he goes and overthrows the elected government of Pakistan (n.b: that was an entirely fictional and speculative example). Any one eager to have that memo on the front of tomorrow’s Islamabad Tribune?
But Bush is going about this all wrong, in part because his family does have a famous fetish for secrecy (though I rather think they’d call it discretion or somesuch). He should go to the leaders congress, explain that they all want to be in the White House someday, too, and work out a deal to modify the law.
Well, thanks for joining our little soiree! 
Want a biscuit?
Well, you aren’t going to get me to argue “general” mis-use…“generally”, I don’t care.
There is a difference between “misuse” and “abuse”. Bush is abusing the ability for entirely personal ends. Hardly the same thing as last minute attempts to protect the environment.
Of course, the Ex-President involved could elect to sign off on a release order, yes? Rather a pity, isn’t it, that Reagan’s Alzheimer’s affliction precludes such an eventuality. Only a coincidence. You bet. Uh-huh. Fer sure, fer sure.
As some of you know, my politics are rather left of center. Therefore, it is my prejudice that the conservative element will be the people most concerned that things remain sealed, the quickest to sing us a song about “national security”. Mustn’t put our vital intelligence sources on Grenada at risk. Etc.
No doubt full disclosure would expose some Democratic scandals. So be it. Lets pile them up, side by side, and let the people see. I will await the result “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”.
I’m guessing you think this because of that situation where he was manuevered and manipulated into lying about a private sexual relationship that was no one’s business (except maybe hillary’s) and had no bearing on anything?
Oh yeah, lock him up and throw away the key, man! Make sure he’s somebody’s bitch! :rolleyes:
stoid
Seeing as how this affects the papers of other presidents, this is not entirely personal ends.
He wasn’t “manuevered and manipulated” into lying; he chose to do that of his own free will, with full understanding of what he was doing. And it was some one else’s business: Paula Jones had a right to know.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
I figure that I will be accused of dead horse flogging yet again, but I just have to make a few points, yet again.
I am creating a standard, factually accurate reply for all the accusations of “lying” made toward Clinton. Here is today’s version, in which I have added cites for the Jones depo. And to answer your statement quoted above, Clinton’s behavior with Lewinsky was not Jones’s business, because it did not involve coercion, it was completely voluntary on Lewinsky’s part, and she, not he, initiated it. It had neither relevance nor materiality in the Jones case.
Re: Clinton’s “Jones” depo- the dictionary definition of sex doesn’t matter, nor does my definition, nor does yours- for the purposes of the depo, the definition of sex was spelled out and limited. Here is a link to Steve Kangas’s web pages concerning this, with the definition from the Depo: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html I had found this page on Google, and didn’t realise that it was Kangas’s at first. What a sad story. If you want to see some Republican demonization just check out what they said about him after Scaife… Well, back to the Depo’s definition of sex. It was essentially this: If Clinton touched ML’s genitals or other erogenous parts, it was sex. It said nothing about her touching his naughty bits. Further, there had been a second paragragh discussing the use of “objects” for stimulation, but that paragraph was struck. Thus the question is not “is a blowjob sex,” but rather “did Clinton do anyting that the paragraph defining sex in this deposition mentions?” Absent proof that he did do one of the things in the the clause, it’s difficult (at least for us strict constructionists)to say he lied under oath.
Materiality. Plaintiff was trying to show that Clinton’s alleged action in the complaint would not have been out of character for him by showing a “pattern of behavior.” First, the “pattern of behavior” concept was irrelevant here, since the Lewinsky affair was completely consensual, and was initiated by her. It was completely unlike the allegation by Jones. Further, when the Judge threw the case out her decision was based on the fact that the only damage that Paula Jones could show was that she did not get flowers one secretary’s day. All of her allegations of missed promotions and raises, etc., that she had sworn to, and which were therefore obviously very material to the case, were shown to be lies. Why wasn’t she charged with perjury? The Judge did not question whether Clinton had made the alleged demand in the alleged fashion, but threw the case out because with no damage stemming from Jones’ alleged refusal, the demand was only “boorishness” and not harrassment. If the only relevance that testimony about ML had went to whether Clinton might have done the foul deed that Jones alleged, and the Judge said that whether Clinton did it was irrelevant to the case, then the testimony should not have been allowed in the first place, and certainly is immaterial.
The Grand Jury Testimony, which can be found here:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm. Remember, the House voted to impeach Clinton on this, and not the Jones deposition. The Starr report called this perjury. In this testimony, Clinton said this: “When I was alone with Ma. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.” Later in the testimony he discusses why he believes that oral sex performed on him by Monica is not included in the definition of sexual relations from the Jones definition. He also discusses why his use of “objects” on Monica is not covered, since the paragraph that mentioned them was struck. Anyone reading the Grand Jury Testimony will get a very clear, complete picture of what Clinton and Lewinsky did. I do not see how this could be called perjury, unless it is claimed that they did things beyond this (fucked, for instance), and to my knowledge the Starr report does not claim that (my next step is to read the Starr Report completely. I love pornography). Where’s the perjury?
Read the transcripts, ignore the sound bites, and a very different picture emerges. JDM
Thank you SO much for that, JDM! All future references to “Clinton the criminal liar” will be answered with a link directly to that post.
Thank you!
stoid
JDM, let me see if I understand this.
Now, I’m clear on the part where Kenny “Savanorola” Starr manuevered William Jefferson Clinton to get him on the stand and see if he couldn’t blindside him.
So KS and Co. set up the question with great wads of lawyerly jargon, all subject to excruciatingly distinct defintions. “Slick” Willy analyzed it on the spot, and weasel-worded a path through so that technically he wasn’t actually perjuring himself.
How subject to interpretation is all this? I mean, if this is all Law 101, every lawyer knows it, etc., shouldn’t Starr’s report to Congress say something like “Can’t prove it.”? Or is it one of those things that two sets of smart lawyers could keep in appeals court forever?
I just couldn’t let this pass. Let’s see what Bill C. himself had to say in his consent decree which fined him $25,000 and revoked his law license for 5 years, and this in addition to his civil contempt charge by Judge Wright:
I acknowledge having knowingly violated Judge Wright’s discovery orders in my deposition in that case. I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.
Bolding mine.
Sounds like a lie to me. 'Course, it all depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
This man was a lawyer, a Rhodes scholar, and President. Pardon me if I have higher expectations for his behavior than, say, just about anyone else! AND his ability to admit wrongdoing and take his lumps. God. No wonder lawyers rank so low on ‘most admired profession’ lists.
Sorry for the hijack. I actually did have a point when I first came in here.
Regarding the EO on distribution of presidential papers - I’m not convinced this has some evil conspiracy theory/CYA written on it. It does seem extreme to provide an indefinite veto power over release of this papers - or was that the intent? To allow for restriction of these papers until the death of the former president? What’s the issue in requiring disclosure earlier? Is there a persuasive argument to be made, or is it just because someone wants it? I’m not arguing the Presidential Papers Act vs. EO, as that’s the smaller issue of the two, IMHO. Just curious as to the need to have public access to this information in a given period of time. As Congress provides oversight of the Executive Branch, a whole other side of this I grant you, where’s the compelling argument?
If GW can’t offer Congress a more substantive argument than I’ve heard, I’m all for them addressing it more directly as well. Not a R v. D issue, as this will likely become more
significant as our ‘technology’ further shrinks our world.
No.
If the accuracy of the preceeding quote reflects the accuracy of the rest of your research, you should not plan on using any of it as a “standard reply.”
Judge Wright dismissed the case at the aummary judgement stage. Summary judgement grants to the losing party the truth of all the allegations he (or she) makes, and finds that, even if all of them are true, and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are also true, the losing party still has failed to prove an essential portion of the case.
The judge did not find any of her statements to be lies - that doesn’t happen at summary judgement; it is a function of a finder of fact at trial. The judge assumed all her allegations to be true, and found that, even if they were all true, she didn’t allege sufficient facts to find in her favor.
The purpose of a trial is to give the fact-finder an opportunity to hear testimony, weigh cerdibility, and draw conclusions. At this summary judgement, the judge found that even if the fact-finder believed all of Jones’ witnesses and testimony, and none of Clinton’s, she still wouldn’t prevail. There was, the judge found, thus no reason to have a trial.
This is what summary judgement is.
Now, is that the only mistake in your “standard reply,” or are there others just as bad - or worse?