Well that I didn’t know. If that’s true, that’s much more damning than any “follow the money” conspiracy theory.
So I looked, and I guess it’s all based on this:
That doesn’t seem like he was informally advising them “throughout” the Jones case, though. Got a better cite?
Bullshit. He came within 17 votes of being removed from office, and he was no more exonerated than O.J. Simpson was. “Not Guilty” does not mean the same thing as “did nothing wrong”. In this instance, it means that only 50 Senators, rather than the requireed 67, felt his misconduct was severe enough to remove him from office.
Nope. Starr admits one such conversation “Additionally, Starr’s own actions were challenged because Starr had, on one occasion, talked with lawyers for Paula Jones, who was suing President Clinton over an alleged sexual assault. Starr had explained to them why he believed that sitting U.S. presidents are not immune to civil suit.[13]” Ken Starr - Wikipedia the wiki entry is not a good cite. The fact that they downplay it and get the number wrong indicates to me they were and still are lying.
However, Davis’ quote that you found indicates that he talked to Starr about how inappropriate it was at the start of Starr’s appointment. My, my. I think that is even more damning than what I knew before.
Bullshit on you. Not guilty is still not guilty. If they truly felt they had him on perjury, they had an obligation as prosecutors with only one case to take him to trial. They lacked not only the fortitude to do so, but the evidence and law to do so. They had to settle for judges sitting in civil making the decisions themselves to a much lower standard.
The Republicans came up far short. Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia of the two thirds needed, with virtually every “moderate” Republican abandoning the party line.
It was an embarrassing abuse of power by Kenneth Starr, Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde.
Senators aren’t even judges, and the “trial” isn’t even civil. An impeachment trial is a purely *political *proceeding, explicitly *separated *from the legal system in the Constitution.
One of the lines of bullshit the Republicans had to sell, in order to make their efforts seem at least superficially justifiable, is that impeachment is a particular sort of criminal proceeding used against federal officials. A lot of people, including some actual lawyers on this very board, bought that, even after (presumably) passing Constitutional Law once upon a time. Some people are still so desperate to avoid admitting how badly they got fooled that they still make that claim.
Would you be willing to bet he’d lie under oath too? Because that’s what Clinton got in trouble for. I’ll spot Oakminster the money on that bet.
Because the judge in the case ruled that the information was relevant to the case, that’s why. And, again, he lied under oath.
The judge disagreed with you, as did the appellate court.
“Exonerated”? That’s not even close.
Are you alleging judicial misconduct, or simply “implying” it? If you’re going to make that kind of accusation, you really should go strong or go home.
[
The same judge who dismissed the case for having absolutely no substance, after giving Scaife’s men the opportunity to go fishing for some with their questioning?
This energeting stripping of context you’re engaging in is a lawyer’s game that we mere mortals are entitled to note and disparage. Required, even.
I appreciate the input, dear Hambone, but you’re just repeating Oakminster’s shitty argument, which I was replying to.
So where does that leave us?
Here’s the thing. I agree. Clinton should never have been impeached for lying under oath about his sexual conduct.
But
And this is a really big but.
That does absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Clinton lied under oath. Whether or not you think he shouldn’t have been asked the questions he lied about (and the courts found he should have), he still lied under oath.
I get really tired of people I tend to agree with on the impeachment issue acting like partisan hacks about Clinton lying under oath.
That leaves us with my position being supported by the caselaw, the judicial rulings, and reality. And that leaves you as being wrong.
Guys as long as we’re hashing out the Clinton Impeachment debacle, perjury or no perjury, the impeachment thing wouldn’t have went forward without Clinton’s famous “I did not have sex with this woman”. I remember watching that on TV and thinking to myself, “Bill, you just fucked yourself with this speech.” If he had gone on national TV and instead of denying it had declared it a private matter and vaguely alluded to mistakes being made, the impeachment never would have gotten off the ground. As has been said, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process, and Clinton gave the Republicans the political cover they needed.
No, it means you think it’s cool to go fishing in someone’s personal life until you find something they’d lie about.
As I said above, I’m certain that some people would agree with you. But just because a judge ruled on it doesn’t make it right.
Again: A consensual sexual relationship doesn’t have any bearing at all on if you’re the sort of person who sexually harasses someone.
IOW “But it’s legal! A judge even said so! So suck on it, neener-neener!”
Hamlet, did you and **Bricker **go to the same law school, or is that a mindset that they *all *teach, the self-delusion that justice and the law are synonymous?
Well it may not be inevitable but they’re defintely angling for another Ken Starr type investigation.
This is different than birther bullshit because birtherism assumes a huge conspiracy of folks covering up the REAL circumstances of obama’s birth. The notion that a majority Republican house will impeach Obama is unlikely (and probably suicide for the Republicans) but it is possible without the existence of a huge conspiracy.
My brother in law has a treadmill that has three video monitors that show baywatch style girls in bikinis running on a beach in front of him. It seems to be working.
It was 45 senators and several republican senators voted against it. Not a singhle Democratic senator voted for it. So yeah, it was political.
IIRC the whole thing came out of an investigation of the Vince Foster death and whitewater and then mission creep set in and before you knew it, Ken Starr was investigating cum stained blue dresses.
“He called me into his office and asked me to schlob his knob, but I refused.”
“No I didn’t.”
It doesn’t seem relevant if I can find several other employees who also were called into his office and asked to schlob his knob? Is that initial experience invalidated if the several other people agreed and went to work?
Seems to me that it would cast serious doubt on his denial.
It was *her *idea, *her *initiative. That is not in doubt.
Who, Lewinsky? How would the court have known that at the time? Paula Jone’s lawyers named Lewinsky as witness well in advance of Clinton’s testimony. Shortly thereafter, she released an affidavit denying that she’d ever had sex with Clinton.
We know now that she was a bit of a hussy, but for all the court knew, she was coerced into keeping quiet by the most powerful man in the free world (or whatever). It still seems reasonable to me that if they had enough reason to name her as a witness, they had enough reason to ask Clinton about their relationship.
But it certainly makes one reach the conclusion that my position has a helluva lot more support than yours. You are, of course, free to disagree. I’ll have to live with having all the courts agreeing with me.
But before you even know whether or not it is consensual, you have to ask the question. That’s what the issue was, is a question about sexual relations with subordinates, valid in a case about sexual relations with subordinates. Consensual or not, the question was rightfully and legally asked. And, once again, it’s nobody’s fault but Clinton’s that he lied under oath.
The “reason to name her as a witness” was that they suspected she’d done Clinton, and that the suit would be a very effective way of making that information public. But the suit was about sexual harassment, and there wasn’t any substance, or even any serious questioning, about Cllnton harassing Lewinsky, or that he had a pattern of engaging in harassment, which was the putative reason for permitting the line of questioning in the first place. It was not, as **Hamlet **evasively and desperately and lawyerishly states, “a case about sexual relations with subordinates”.