All? Why that’s quite a pedigree. 
He shouldn’t have lied. But anyone here would be tempted lie if your biggest secret were asked about on the stand.
When that biggest secret has nothing to do with the case in question, that’s a bad thing.
Well, allow me to be cynical again and say that the case was about Paula Jones getting $850,000. It’s the job of her lawyers to get the most money that they can out of the settlement, and including Lewinsky as a witness does exactly that. And including her was legal and justifiable for reasons Hamlet has explained.
My only point is that Lewinsky was named as a witness because she helped the Paula Jones case, and the Paula Jones case came about because Paula Jones wanted it to. It wasn’t part of the same fishing expedition that ultimately resulted in impeachment, IMO.
There’s insinuations in this thread that Clinton was caught perjuring himself because of some nefarious scheme that involved A) a rich benefactor putting out a bounty on Clinton dirt, B) a journalist finding such dirt in Paula Jones, C) Kenneth Starr tipping off Paula Jones’ lawyers about Lewinsky, D) Kenneth Starr apparently having the foresight to know that Clinton would lie about Lewinsky, and E) Kenneth Starr knowing that Linda Tripp was about to come forward with some tapes. This string of events doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny; I did learn some interesting things today, but I remain unconvinced that Clinton’s initial testimony about Lewinsky was politically driven in the same way that the Kenneth Starr investigation was.
Continue to be cynical, and you’ll see how little getting Paula Jones her money had to do with it. The lawyers Scaife provided for her knew there was nothing there in any legal sense, of course, they’re not fools. There had to be other reasons, and it doesn’t take much cynicism or much awareness of the facts to see what those reasons were. Those facts include the substantial increase in her visible standard of living through the course of the suit, by the way.
Your A, B, and C are established facts. D is explainable by Starr and Scaife hoping something would finally turn up - remember, they had unlimited time and budget. E is not necessary.
C is not an established fact. Cite?
Here’s one good timeline. There are plenty, just a Google away.
And let’s not forget Starr’s attempts to suborn Lewinsky.
Seriously? That’s your cite?
Technically ‘Barak’ and ‘Hussein’ are arabic names, not specifically Muslim names. They are both names which predate Islam’s founding.
I’m not interested in spoonfeeding you, kiddo. Do your own homework.
Amen. There are other federal judges in this district. You f’in recuse yourself if there is an appearance of impropriety. She knew one of the litigants as a former law professor of hers. http://articles.cnn.com/1998-09-19/us/9809_starr.report_profiles_wright_1_law-professor-judge-susan-webber-wright-paula-jones?_s=PM:SPECIALS
Having now looked this up, she is a fucking sleaze for not recusing herself. How’s that for going strong or going home? You don’t preside over cases where you know the litigants or have been closely associated with his political opponents. And it doesn’t matter that she threw Jones’ case out for being bogus. It is the appearance of an impropriety that matters.
You know, you should really go strong or go home. Personally I approve of Clinton’s answers in this situation. The fucktards that abused the process from Starr to Wright to Hyde and Gingrich should not get involved or get the law involved in boorish conduct between consenting adults. Clinton should have and did fuck with the meaning of the bogus process that brought contempt and scorn on the whole nation.
I personally enjoy it when officials abusing power trip on their own dicks. Lying about a collateral matter of a consensual private blow job is not worthy of the Court’s time, much less the nation’s time.
Now if it is about false SEC filings that deprive thousands of people of their jobs and the gov’t of tax receipts, that will amount to nothing. (Romney’s Bain SEC filings.) One is a situation that affects the public good, the other was only strong enough for an attempted political hack job that stopped the country from conducting a lot of business. Which was the gross abuse of power? Which was bullshit? If the prosecutor felt he had a case for perjury, he had an obligation to bring it unless he had more important matters competing for proprietorial resources. He had only this one case. It is a safe inference that he (Starr and his successor) thought it was bullshit and only amounted to the political.
Or Julie Hyatt Steel and Susan McDoughal. McDoughal spent quite a bit of time in very uncomfortable confinement because Starr demanded that she lie under oath.
My homework says that Lewinsky was named as a witness in the Paula Jones case on December 6th, 1997; gave a statement on Dec 17th; and was detained by Ken Starr for questioning on January 16th of 1998.
My homework also says that Ken Starr talked to the Paula Jone’s lawyers in 1994, and specifically about presidential immunity. Both parties were reported to have the same basic recollection of what they talked about.
I’m done doing homework, because I’m pretty sure that’s all that’s out there. If you have some evidence that Starr knew about Lewinsky prior to any of that, I’m all ears. If you can actually back up your statement that Starred tipped off Jones’ lawyers about Lewinsky, I’m definitely all ears.
Much better than “probably have recused herself”. Well done.
You do realize it had been 20 years since she had taken his class. And that Judge Wright actually asked Clinton if he wanted her recused, and he said no? Cite:
“Before proceeding with such an inquiry, Wright gave Clinton the opportunity to ask that another judge handle the matter if he or his lawyers felt she could not rule fairly because of her contact with one of the House Republicans who prosecuted him before the Senate.”
You know who did ask her to recuse herself? Right wing nutjobs at Judicial Watch, who felt that Wright was too sympathetic to Clinton.
When Clinton refuses to request her recusal and the right wingers want her recused for being too lenient, I think you have a hard time concluding that she was biased against Clinton.
If she has to ask one party to recuse herself, she should make clear to another party. Yeah, if you have to ask, you need to recuse. No big deal need be made, it is a minute order. Only a Scalia would hear cases involving friends and enemies.
I notice you went home on the argument that the right wing used the independent counsel and laws abusively. The Jones and Lewinsky matters were the type of crap one expects from banana republicans.
No, you don’t. She asked, not because she needed to be recused, but because she wanted to give Clinton the opportunity if he thought she should be. And he didn’t. When Clinton and his legal team themselves think Judge Wright didn’t need to recuse herself, I find it hard to believe that she was “fucking sleaze” for listening to them.
And Clinton played right into their little yellow skinned, potasium rich hands by lying under oath.
I disagree with you here. She knows what is in her mind, and is putting a public figure on the spot with presumptively knowing all of what might be going on in her mind. When there is an appearance of impropriety, you recuse. End of story. The fact that we are talking about it now shows it has the appearance of impropriety. The public also has a right to confidence in judges recusing themselves when necessary. Republican appointees from Scalia on down spit on the public’s right to have no appearances of impropriety. I, as a member of the public, have a right in every case to have a judge who isn’t connected with the parties in deciding those cases, either for favoritism or enmity.
I sometimes sit as a small claims court judge. I would never hear a case where I knew one of the parties from 20 years ago, even casually. Ever. This was not a casual relationship as law professor, nor as political opponent worker. It isn’t just the litigants who have the right to non-biased judges, it is the whole citizenry.
It was a railroading from Ken Starr, to the House of Reps, to Goldberg and Tripp, to McDoughal, to Wright. Wouldn’t it be even the least bit assuring if we didn’t have to include Wright in that argument because she’d never dealt with the man?
Wright is scum. Deal with it.
Either go strong on this or go home.
So, to you, if someone on a message board somewhere thinks there is an appearance of impropriety, there IS an appearance of impropriety (no matter that the actual party doesn’t think there is), and the judge needs to recuse herself or be labelled a “fucking sleaze”?
I’m not buying it. I think we can agree to disagree.
Alrighty then. I think you’re a rabidly partisan hack who puts party over over common sense and is so biased that any opinion of yours on this issue is completely useless. I think you should be ashamed of your slandering a federal judge, that you should pay more attention to the actual facts and the opinion of Clinton himself, and that you have very little actual support for your position. I think I’ve concluded that I can now safely lump you in with ElvisL1ves on the issue of Clinton’s lying under oath and thus ignore you from here on out. I also think that’s kinda sad because I think there is room here to agree.
You will never get agreement from me that a judge should ever hear her old law professor’s case. Like or hate him. You will never get agreement from me that a judge who worked on old political campaigns opposite a now litigant can ever appear to be fair. Wright did both. These are facts. She was out to get him in the campaign, and we have no reason to believe that she was no longer a partisan in political matters. Where I went to law school, the canons required recusal for appearance of impropriety.
The Clinton impeachment mess was a political street fight. The losing side got their faces rubbed in their own flung feces. Yeah, I’m partisan about it. But I don’t pretend to be impartial about it, I’m not. The losers got their asses kicked, and deservedly so. Each of those losers had an opportunity to not participate. Wright included. Despite knowing damn well that it raised issues of recusal, despite knowing damn well there were other federal judges who did not have that problem, she decided to put the onus on a party for recusal, when the duty was to the public in a highly political case. I’m quite happy saying she is scum and unethical.
Glad to hear that you are done debating this and have no real arguments on why it is okay for a judge to judge the cases of people they know and have electioneerred against.
You could have gone strong. You went home.
Boo fucking hoo, Hamlet, you pathetic crybaby.
When come back, bring argument.
Yeah, I’ll just sit at home with the Clinton lawyers, Clinton himself, the judge, the opposing counsel, and the appellate court, all of whom agree that Judge Wright didn’t need to be recused while you stand outside without any support, screeching like a braindead harpy and throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with you. I like that home.
ETA: I was wrong, you do have “support”. You have ElvisL1ves out there throwing his own feces rather than engaging in rational thought. Congrats on having one of the most partisan hacks on this board on your side.