While you make a compelling case that you’re showing me two and two, surely you can understand my suspicions that you can’t show me any examples of four? Absent any cases showing your two and two combining to get Airman’s four, I’m going to stubbornly continue doubting the fours.
I read your prior post, which is an argument that the detail was relevant. Bricker has earlier stated that a jury could reasonably decide the relevance issue either way; isn’t that precisely what it means for an issue to be arguable?
Only while in office, and that didn’t stop Scaife from pursuing the Jones suit anyway, now did it?
If you’d read this whole thread you’d know better. I’ve laid it out for you more than once. It’s a last-resort act of statecraft that is sometimes necessary in extreme cases, when its subject’s continued presence in office presents an intolerable danger to the Republic. For a corrupt judge, it’s the only way to cancel a lifetime appointment. For an elected official, with a finite term, its use must meet an even higher standard, including public support for its use - something that was present in Nixon’s case but not Clinton’s. Its misuse as a simple act of partisan political, even personal, spite is what I’m “damning”. The concept that Clinton’s presence in office despite the effort to get him for something represented a danger to the Republic is just silly - but that silliness explains the tenacity with which its supporters refuse to face the facts.
That was most certainly a case of protecting the Republic from an officeholder whose presence in office had come to represent a danger to it. It had broad, general support across both parties and from We the People as the details of Nixon’s abuses of power became obvious.
Can we take it that you cannot support your earlier insinuations that Clinton did far worse things that didn’t see the light of day? Are you ever going to back up your statements, or are you going to do the honorable thing for once?
I am not Airman’s keeper. I humbly request that you answer my posts, and don’t seek to have me answer on his behalf.
I think it’s pretty tough to argue against materiality if you focus on the issue when the question was asked. Sure, juries can find whatever they want, but on these facts I think the argument for materiality is very, very strong.
Dewey, my position at least is that Clinton was not (contrary to Airman’s implication) protected from prosecution by his power and contacts; he was protected by the De minimis principle.
Also known as “the principle I just pulled out of my ass.”
Clinton was protected by an act of prosecutorial discretion (and if you don’t think his power and contacts weighed in exercising that discretion, you’re nuts). That doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a felony.
This whole series of exchanges goes back to Airman Doors’ assertion that if he had done the same thing as Clinton, he would have gone to prison. My position is that thousands of people lie about tangential matters in discovery every day and are not prosecuted for perjury.
It is also decidedly not my position that Clinton committed a felony. My position vis-a-vis AD is simply that he would never have been prosecuted. My position towards whether Clinton actually committed perjury is that (I would argue) it was a technically truthful statement as well as immaterial to the case. You are saying that a jury might plausibly find otherwise and it might, but the nature of this kind of charge is that all conditions necessary to find guilt are subjective. In my opinion, Clinton’s answer to the sex question was not a provable lie.
I’m not, actually: I’m just pointing out that I’m asking a specific question, and while you’re making a convincing argument about what an answer should look like, you’re not answering it. If that’s fine with you, that’s fine with me: you’re under no obligation to answer that question. I mentioned Airman only because his post was the one that prompted my question.
As to the materiality, the point is that Clinton’s relationship with the intern didn’t fit the quid pro quo pattern, and therefore wasn’t material. While the questioner may have thought it might be material, and while a quid pro quo relationship would have been material, the questioner was mistaken.
Same difference. It was the same investigation, same office. Ray knew he didn’t have a criminal case. The whole thing was cooked up solely as a contrivance for impeachment.
Depends on what you mean by “have a criminal case.” On the law, I think the case was quite good. On the intangibles – like, say, a jury’s willingness to convict a popular former president – perhaps not. A good prosecutor will cut a deal when those intangibles are against him. That doesn’t mean his case wasn’t strong.
Well, now, Brer Dewey, seems to me I’ve heard and read this case discussed by a number of lawyers, in a variety of venues, and never gathered the impression that the matter was as cut and dried as you seem to suggest. Of course, none of them were Baylor men (or they were too modest to brag on it), so this Court leans to one’s homey, but still…
I wonder, if one were to sneak up on you and change the jumper setting on your advocacy chip…I suspect that Dewey V1.1 would give Dewey V1.0 a run for his money…
Suppose one could offer a big ol’ nasty wad of money…but one simply couldn’t impugn your integrity in such a way. One must maintain the pristine reputation of Texas lawyers in matters of strict moral fiber and unwavering virtue.
The key point here, and one that seems to be getting missed, its that the crux of the matter being legally argued is a blowjob. Monica Lewinsky’s lips on Bill Clinton’s dick. It was all about a blowjob. A blowjob. A blowjob. We must never forget the incredible absuridty of the central facts of the case. ANY dignity this case gets is MUCH more dignity than it deserves, and we must never forget that, or allow Republicans to forget it either.
It was about … a blowjob. That is all it ever was about.