Have the Teeming Millions heard the latest about Newt Gingrich?? Man, does he now come off as a hypocrite!! Especially so after how he whined against Clinton!
pldennison:
I’ll grant you that usually the interns have nothing to do with the president directly.
But are you seriously suggesting that if the president is of mind to advance the career of one, that he’d be unable to do so?
Even if we’re not talking about positions within the executive branch, but about the president calling in powerful friends to pull strings for her…isn’t that exactly what he was accused of (and I’m not saying guilty of) doing, re: Vernon Jordan? Are you suggesting that he couldn’t?
dougie_monty:
Yeah, I practically retched when I heard about that. I used to think he wasn’t such a bad person, but now, I thank G-d he decided to quit politics. (Hmmm…I wonder if he quit because he was afraid his affair would come to light if he stayed?)
Chaim Mattis Keller
By the way, Chaim: I suppose you also knew Gingrich has a lesbian sister. i know * that * wouldn’t sit well with the Republicans’ official position about “family values.”
dougie_monty:
Is he his sister’s keeper?
Chaim Mattis Keller
Only if she were ‘bi,’ Chaim.
[[Big Iron, You call me an idiot, fuck you! You are the one who is clueless. I was speaking FACT.]] 1420Vel
Uh huh, right … call me when you find out what a “fact” is.
[[ One would think that an lawyer would know how the govt works. Meet me in the Pitt if you wish to continue your ranting.]]
I do indeed, tough guy – I know (unlike you) that the President plays an important role in the budget process, and that Clinton (unlike, say, Reagan) actually submitted proposed budgets that were roughly in balance.
[[AND since you don’t seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I was “babbling” about I’ll go through the record - I hate this why can’t the dumbass follow it without assistance?]]
Sorry, what you posted was incoherent.
[[You said, in reference to my comment about Clinton being a lier, that it really sets him apart from the others. I said that Bush’s popular comment “read my lips, no new taxes” was followed by a luxury tax - he lied about new taxes. ]]
Well, the “lie” (and it wasn’t even really a lie, it was reneging on his stupid pledge) was mainly in the subsequent income tax hike. That’s what he got crucified for.
[[NOW pay attention this is where it takes the intellect to resolve an ethical dilemma.]]
Yers, you’re clearly in a position to give lessons.
[[ Bush, did add a new tax even though he knew it might be a political disaster, because he thought it was the correct thing to do for the Country.]]
I agree – he was unfairly pilloried for that act of modest fiscal responsibility.
[[ The weapons for hostages was a bargin, I know we are not susposed “deal” with terroists, but that was a million dollar deal for a dollar. ]]
So that makes it OK to lie about it?
[[So what, we gave some junk that is relatively impotent for human life. Point is that those Republicans risked their political future for the benefit of the American People.]]
They lied about those things, of course, to protect their butts, just like Wild Bill – sorry.
[[Kind of like the difference between telling a young child that there IS a Santa Claus or that the dress looks good. Clinton used the power of his office for personal gain and to subvert the legal process - to hide the real maggot he is.]]
What “personal gain” can you possibly be yammering about?
[[Also, this is not a court of law, the specific rules of evidence may have created a situation where the court did not see the evidence, but we all know what happened.]]
Right, who cares about evidence, you know he’s guilty – very convincing.
[[ You say that you “can’t find much that’s really improper.” Well in the few posts of yours that I have read, I have determined that your sense of observation is not to be relied on.]]
Well, I’m still waiting for those things – oh, right, that would require some credible evidence, which is sadly inconvenient for your assertions.
[[ I don’t have a problem with the way our system works with regard to a criminal getting off because of rules that only allow certain types of evidence. It is a price we pay to maintain the freedoms we have - but don’t tell me Bill is not guilty.]]
Guilty of what, again?
[[If it were as simple as electing a Republican President the Country’s budget problems would have been solved with the past administrations.]]
Obviously it wasn’t that simple – Reagan never even tried to balance the budget, despite having run on that plank.
[["If you didn’t haver any idea what the law of perjury entailed, why were you foolish enough to declare that what I said was “absolutely not true,” affirmatively declaring that materiality is irrelevant to perjury?
I didn’t quite have no idea, however, I’ll admit that my understanding of it was not as deep as a certified lawyer. My use of “absolutely,” which I’ll admit was incorrect, and for it I apoligize, was meant to apply to the idea that Clinton didn’t perjure himself for lack of materiality, not specifically the assertion that materiality is irrelevant to perjury.]] cmkeller
Well, I believe you are still wrong about that, too.
[[“Of course, it is a complete lie to suggest Clinton needed to lie to help him win the Jones case. Whether he fooled around with Monica was not material to the case, which was dismissed anyway.”
My, how quick you are to remember that it was dismissed…and how easily you forget that it was re-opened after Clinton admitted to the lie before Starr’s grand jury.]]
In what way was it “re-opened”? It certainly was not “re-opened” as a result of the revelation that he got a few BJs from Monica.
[[“Of course, according to the judge he wasn’t on ‘the wrong end’ of it.
Based on his false testimony. As I pointed out, it was re-opened when he admitted that his testimony had been false.]]
Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge’s decision – a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read.
[[“Right, it’s mere spinelessness to maintain that a President ought to be charged with serious wrongdoing to justify impeachment. Thanks for the laugh.
First of all, it’s hardly laughable to suggest that a felony is “serious wrongdoing.” Secondly, it’s spineless to (two examples here) A) talk tough about the president’s lies, like so many Senators…even Democrats (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut comes to mind here)…did until they were actually in a position to do something about it, B) to actually say that perjury is an impeachable offense, and that one believes the president to have been guilty of perjury, but to not vote against him (Robert Byrd of West Virginia did just this).]]
Sorry, I’m sticking with my original position – fibbing on a non-material issue in a deposition in a civil case unrelated to the guy’s duties in office (and, perhaps, fibbing about the fibbing) was wrong, but it was not remotely impeachable.
[[”(because, of course, they were not material).”
Was that actually stated, or is that your assumption as to why the testimony was ruled inadmissable?]]
I can’t imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason.
[[“There you go! Hey, you can learn something after all – in many cases (like this one) that’s absolutely correct. Have a Chaimy Snack!”
Right now, I’m chewing on your condescension, and not finding it very palatable.]]
Tell you what – I won’t tell you how to interpret the Torah, and you don’t tell me how to interpret the law of labor and employment.
[[And, why is this a case in which the defendant’s history of employee sex is irrelevant?]]
Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate.
[[ It seems to me that Paula Jones was charging that Bill Clinton traded employment favors for sex. Whether or not you believe she was correct, doesn’t the allegation make such a history a relevant factor?]]
That’s not my recollection of her allegation – she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred.
BigIron, if you are so smart then tell me how the Pres makes such a difference, so quickly, in the Country’s fiscal issues. We are just now realizing the policies of Regan/Bush.
BTW, according to a group of the brightest economists, (the DOJ only hires the best Phd’s from the best schools) it is Regan’s policies that have put the Nation in its prosperous position.
The first four years of the Clinton admn nothing was in balance. It was not untill the R majority took hold of Congress and the Contract with America, that the budget turned around.
The Pres should be a leader of the people, somebody we can look-up to, one who infulences policy; the Congress actively manages and makes policy for the Country.
“Still waiting” My God man! Haven’t you been paying attention? Again, I hate having to explain things Like I’m writing a scholarly paper, I am assuming that the audiance has some background - BI you seem to so why…
Clinton Lied and blamed everybody else about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” he used the power of his office to evade and subvert the judicial process.
Why? Personal gain? If you can’t figure it out, why a politician desires to hide criminal behavior then you must be detached. If he did nothing wrong why did he pay Jones $800,000? Why did a judge recently fine him $100,000? If he is so innocent why hasn’t he offered any evidence to show that all or some of the claims are false.
And yes it is OK to not be truthful (read my post again) and try not to take me out of context! With Clinton it was all about him, and hiding what he did for himself. The lie about hostages was a mater of National Security.
later
I would remind everybody that not only was the arms-for-hostages situation covered by lies to the American people, it violated a specific law that was enacted exactly to prevent situations like what occurred. Also, I’m not sure what stands to be lost by telling the American people that the government is about to get their citizens released.
Anyone who really thinks Bill Clinton getting his dick sucked is worse than that really needs to have their head examined.
I’ll bet the hostages don’t think so! And it’s not just about the bj, it is about his abuse of woman and then attacking people who tried to get to the truth or accused him of behavior that was not proper.
Those poor guys had been held way to long, Clinton would not have cared, but a few people risked their political careers to help others in a bad situation - they could have just let the hostages sit.
[[BigIron, if you are so smart then tell me how the Pres makes such a difference, so quickly, in the Country’s fiscal issues.]] 1420Vel.
As usual, your assertions are garbled, but the President, among other things, generally sets the tone and agenda for legislation, actively proposing many of the bills, and specifically proposing a budget each year (a proposal that carries a lot of weight in light of the President’s veto power). In addition, the President is the most important player regarding international agreements (such as those regarding trade).
[[ We are just now realizing the policies of Regan/Bush.]]
Right, Perfessor – more like we’re just repairing them.
In any event, I think it’s cute how you’ve gone from “it’s the Congress that controls the budget/economy”
(attempting to give all the credit to the recently-Republican Congress) to “past Presidents are responsible for the current robust economy” (to avoid the uncomfortable fact of Clinton’s reign for the last 7 years and the fact that untoil recently Congress was largely in Democratic control).
[[BTW, according to a group of the brightest economists, (the DOJ only hires the best Phd’s from the best schools) it is Regan’s policies that have put the Nation in its prosperous position.]]
According to “a group” of them, huh? Well, that’s certainly convincing!
Oh, and how long are you gonna keep misspelling the old guy’s name?
And what the heck is the “DOJ”? Department of Justice (the usual meaning)? They aren’t hiring economists to study such matters.
[[The first four years of the Clinton admn nothing was in balance. It was not untill the R majority took hold of Congress and the Contract with America, that the budget turned around.]]
Right, whatever you say – budgets go from imbalance to balance overnight, uh huh.
[[“Still waiting” My God man! Haven’t you been paying attention? Again, I hate having to explain things Like I’m writing a scholarly paper, I am assuming that the audiance has some background - BI you seem to so why…
Clinton Lied and blamed everybody else about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” he used the power of his office to evade and subvert the judicial process.]]
God forbid you should have to specify which lies and what wrongdoings, and what evidence supports your charges, huh? I realize that is asking an awful lot of you, and for you is the equivalent of “writing a scholarly paper.” How much more convenient to just be able to assume the truth of your assertions, here, the notion that Clinton is guilty of a wide range of illegal and improper activities.
Too bad for you that shit don’t fly here.
[[Why? Personal gain? If you can’t figure it out, why a politician desires to hide criminal behavior then you must be detached.]]
And which criminal behavior was that, again?
[[ If he did nothing wrong why did he pay Jones $800,000? ]]
I think it was less than that, but the answer is because further litigation would entail further expense, because the outcome of any case is always at least somewhat in doubt, and because it was of considerable value for him to put the matter behind him as best he could, reardless of the case’s merits (and they were very few).
[[ Why did a judge recently fine him $100,000?]]
He was wrong to lie in his deposition – we’ve established that so far.
[[ If he is so innocent why hasn’t he offered any evidence to show that all or some of the claims are false.]]
Concerning what, specifically?
[[And yes it is OK to not be truthful (read my post again) and try not to take me out of context!]]
I didn’t take you out of context in the least, so quit your ignorant whining about it.
[[ With Clinton it was all about him, and hiding what he did for himself. The lie about hostages was a mater of National Security.]]
Right, Reagan and Co. lied about Iran/Contra to protecty “national security.” Thanks for the laugh.
BigIron, “that shit don’t fly here” - again you have just taken what I’ve said an just hit me with a bunch of personal attacks. If you had any substance you would refute my comments instead of claiming “ignorant whining”. And stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it stupid. I never said “all” the credit goes to the R Congress or that they turned the budget around “over night”
If the policy is under repair as you say, then how is it already effecting the State?
AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd’s from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed’s will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.
Yes it is true that the President has influence in the drafting of and proposes parts of the budget; sets the tone and agenda (that’s what I was saying), but many of the parts that Clinton proposed that actually became part of the budget sounded as if he read the plan directly form the Contract with America.- read my post again
If you can’t find anything incorrect with my post, just keep your hole shut! save the ranting for the pit, or just cut the kidding around and say something about my mother, because I am growing tired of your whining.
I provide examples and reasons, and you often answer with “very convincing” and leave it at that - have you got something more convincing? If you did, you would probably post it
Big Iron:
Done some research. So here goes:
But first things first:
My bad. I had thought that the case had been genuinely re-instated, but apparently (best as I can tell, at least), it was merely on appeal when Clinton and Jones settled it out of court. However, Clinton’s lies were apparently one of the points made by the Jones lawyers in the appeal.
You mean the judge’s decision to dismiss the case? True, that was because Jones had not proven damage.
You’re welcome to your opinion; I was merely pointing out that there were a number of senators who had openly spoken of impeachment but ended up not doing it when they actually had the power to.
The only mention I’ve been able to find of the materiality issue (maybe there are others, but I looked pretty hard) was in Clinton’s lawyers’ defense brief. In it, they contend that his testimony had not been material, and they give their reasons why they think it wasn’t, but at no time did they write that the judge had actually ruled it immaterial, which would be an odd omission.
First of all, I hadn’t realized you’re a lawyer until now. Second of all, even when you’re not discussing legal issues, you have a tendency to be insulting toward people who disagree with you. I’ll tell you what – let’s all try to raise one another’s awareness of facts they may not have been aware of before discussing the issue at hand, in whatever subject, without attempting to insult the other. This isn’t courtroom combat; it’s friendly (or should be) discussion…let’s all keep it that way.
First of all, Monica was hardly a direct subordinate. Yes, she worked in the White House, but not only is there someone specifically charged with overseeing interns, she was also working under Leon Panetta. Second of all, Paula Jones never said Bill Clinton engaged in forced sex with her or tried to force it upon her.
My understanding of the Jones lawyers strategy was that they were going to prove that, although Clinton didn’t actively damage those who didn’t have sex with him, he did promote the careers of those who did, with Monica as one example. When Clinton swore he never had sex with Monica (or anyone other than his wife), the Jones lawyers had no evidence of this, so couldn’t include it in their claim. However, had he not lied under oath, the truth would have provided the evidence they need to include it in their claim (the Tripp tapes having not come forward until several months later).
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Hey, weren’t you just on the other side of this fence?
[[BigIron, “that shit don’t fly here” - again you have just taken what I’ve said an just hit me with a bunch of personal attacks.]] 1420Vel.
Your continued dishonest whining gets you nowhere – my statement was an accurate description of the fact that around these parts you can’t get away with saying something is true without providing some evidence. I have asked for specific charges and some evidence to support them – you continue to offer neither.
[[ If you had any substance you would refute my comments instead of claiming “ignorant whining”. ]]
Ahhh … so you consider it a high-road kinda non-personal rsponse of substance to follow my request that you support your vague allegation with the assertion that I lack “substance.” Gotcha …
Meanwhile, I am hardly able to “refute” your assertions if you refuse to make any specific ones.
[[And stop putting words in my mouth and then calling it stupid. I never said “all” the credit goes to the R Congress or that they turned the budget around “over night”]]
That was a fair characterization of your posts.
[[If the policy is under repair as you say, then how is it already effecting the State?]]
Since the question part of this in incomprehensible, I’ll just specify that the part “under repair” involves the massive budget deficet racked up by prior administrations.
[[AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd’s from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed’s will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.]]
I’m afraid you are going to have to provide some support for this proposition – perhaps it is true, but it makes no sense on its face, and I have never heard of any such thing.
[[Yes it is true that the President has influence in the drafting of and proposes parts of the budget; sets the tone and agenda (that’s what I was saying), but many of the parts that Clinton proposed that actually became part of the budget sounded as if he read the plan directly form the Contract with America.- read my post again ]]
Please – it was silly enough on the first read-through.
[[If you can’t find anything incorrect with my post, just keep your hole shut!]]
Of course, I have identified many deficiencies in what you have posted, mainly in the realm of an absence of support and specificity. You continue to evade them, retreating to ad hominem laced complaints about my supposed personal attacks. Very impressive.
[[ save the ranting for the pit, or just cut the kidding around and say something about my mother, because I am growing tired of your whining.
I provide examples and reasons, and you often answer with “very convincing” and leave it at that - have you got something more convincing? If you did, you would probably post it]]
You have refused to provide specifics and support at every instance when they are requested.
[["In what way was it ‘re-opened’?
My bad. I had thought that the case had been genuinely re-instated, but apparently (best as I can tell, at least), it was merely on appeal when Clinton and Jones settled it out of court. However, Clinton’s lies were apparently one of the points made by the Jones lawyers in the appeal.]] cmkeller
Just because you make an argument on appeal doesn’t mean it will be (or should be) taken seriously. Clinton falsely denying he got blown by Lewinsky had no bearing on the case.
[[“Sorry, Chaim, you are simply fact-challenged on this one. The testimony of Clinton was not relied upon in any way in the judge’s decision – a decision I read, and which I seriously doubt you read.”
You mean the judge’s decision to dismiss the case? True, that was because Jones had not proven damage.]]
Yes, that is the decision we have been talking about, and which was on appeal.
[[“I can’t imagine any other reason why is was ruled inadmissable, and my recollection is that this was in fact the stated reason.”
The only mention I’ve been able to find of the materiality issue (maybe there are others, but I looked pretty hard) was in Clinton’s lawyers’ defense brief. In it, they contend that his testimony had not been material, and they give their reasons why they think it wasn’t, but at no time did they write that the judge had actually ruled it immaterial, which would be an odd omission.]]
That ruling was likely not published, as is the case with most interlocutory rulings.
[[“Because the fact that he engaged in consensual sex with a direct subordinate does not tend to make it more likely that he would engage in non-consensual conduct with someone who is, at best, a distant subordinate.”
First of all, Monica was hardly a direct subordinate. Yes, she worked in the White House, but not only is there someone specifically charged with overseeing interns, she was also working under Leon Panetta. Second of all, Paula Jones never said Bill Clinton engaged in forced sex with her or tried to force it upon her.]]
It was a non-consensual encounter she alleged, under circumstances completely removed from he nominal staus as his “subordinate.”
[[“That’s not my recollection of her allegation – she claimed he retaliated for her refusal, despite any evidence that any retaliatory acts occurred.”
My understanding of the Jones lawyers strategy was that they were going to prove that, although Clinton didn’t actively damage those who didn’t have sex with him, he did promote the careers of those who did, with Monica as one example. When Clinton swore he never had sex with Monica (or anyone other than his wife), the Jones lawyers had no evidence of this, so couldn’t include it in their claim. However, had he not lied under oath, the truth would have provided the evidence they need to include it in their claim (the Tripp tapes having not come forward until several months later).]]
There are several problems with that, including (1) one incident does not make a pattern, (2) Monica’s career was never advanced as a reward for sex, and (3) it is not generally against the law (i.e., Title VII) to treat an employee BETTER because he or she had sex with you (unless it’s at the direct expense of someone who refused to have sex with you) – in other words, even if there was evidence, the theory is not a legally valid one.
{{[[AND Yes DOJ=Dept of Justice. AND the top of the class Phd’s from the top schools=more convincing than you. AND the DOJ economists are hired with the understanding that the fed’s will sponsor their personal research, even provide suport staff for their research, and they are hiring economists that are looking in to these matters.]]
I’m afraid you are going to have to provide some support for this proposition – perhaps it is true, but it makes no sense on its face, and I have never heard of any such thing.}} Me
BTW, it will not serve simply to note that the DOJ anti-trust division employs some economists, as these people are hired specifically to analyze cases for actual or potential anti-trust prosecution.
BigIron, just because you don’t know it to be true doesn’t mean it is a lie.
It is not my responsibility to educate an ignoramus. If you are calling me a lier than offer some proof. I’m tired of your opinion.
We are talking about the impeached, convicted Pres, right? I can understand your love for Bill; after all he has spent massive amounts on lawyers
Okay, you despise Clinton, I get the message, Vel. did you want Bush or Dole as president instead?
Sorry, but Clinton got more votes. What do you want, a recount?
BigIron:
Nope! I’ve got the genuine straight dope on this one! By amazing coincidence, I heard this quoted on a radio show yesterday, and I’ve looked it up for real. The following is a direct quote from footnote 7 in Judge Wright’s finding Bill Clinton in contempt of court:
“In so ruling (that the Lewinsky evidence would be inadmissable in the Jones case), this court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff’s case.”
So, the President’s testimony about the Lewinsky affair was never ruled immaterial.
Monica Lewinsky was hardly the only “Jane Doe” that the Jones lawyers were asking about or alleging. They had a lot of names, intending to establish a pattern. They asked Bill Clinton to name all state or federal employees he’d had sex with, and he said none. Yes, there were specific questions about Lewinsky later, but they were not trying to build their whole case around her.
In the end, I’ll admit it seems that way, however, before the impeachment hearing, it sure looked like the President had tried to use his connections to get her a job she wanted. The Jones lawyers were working with that information.
My understanding of the Jones’ lawyers strategy was that they were attempting to say that the preferential treatment given to those he had sex with made the workplace a hostile environment for those with whom he didn’t.
Chaim Mattis Keller