monty, yeah I’d rather of had Bush. at least parents would not have to tell their young children to go away because the Pres is on!
[[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. ]] 1420Vel.
So now you feel it’s up to others to disprove your dubious assertions, rather than up to you to support them? I take it from your response here that, in fact, you cannot provide any support for the the assertions you have made here, and that this is your attempt at cleverly declaring victory and pulling out.
[[I’m tired of your opinion.]]
I’m sure you find it frustrating to be embarassed as you have been, and exasperating to have to actually try to support your statements.
[[We are talking about the impeached, convicted Pres, right?]]
Convicted of what? He hasn’t been convicted of anything.
[[ I can understand your love for Bill; after all he has spent massive amounts on lawyers ]]
Yeah, just because I take issue with the often-hysterical ranting of Clinton-haters, that means I “love” him. Right …
[[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.”]] cmkeller
Perhaps – got a link or a citation? And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?
[[So, the President’s testimony about the Lewinsky affair was never ruled immaterial.]]
Perhaps – doesn’t change the fact that indeed it WAS immaterial.
[[“There are several problems with that, including (1) one incident does not make a pattern,”
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.]]
It seems they didn’t get too far with them, either.
[["(2) Monica’s career was never advanced as a reward for sex "
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.]]
If anything, it got her kicked out of the White House and into an office in Arlington.
“(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.”
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.]]
Since Jones was not even really an employee of Clinton’s in any real sense, never having the slightest work-related contact with him or any of her peers, that theory can only be described as frivolous.
Yeah…"Read more lips no more taxes. And four more years of that son-of-a-bitch Quayle! Sieg Heil!!
Bigi, after a night of partying, I don’t have the energy to look-up and find cites for you. One expects the other debater to have some background. Getting tired of repeating my self too.
“up to others to disprove” a scientist tests a hypothesis by attempting to disprove the null-hyp. “embarrassed” ??? Why, it is you that have hardly offered anything except for series of snide remarks
[[Bigi, after a night of partying, I don’t have the energy to look-up and find cites for you. ]] 1420Vel.Non.
Nor at any other time, it seems.
it seems to you, but then again you “don’t seem to find much…” anyway!
another clever remark-WoW
BigIron:
Well, that was a citation, but here’s a link…
http://209.184.52.2/ecm/dc_images/2509249.PDF
It’s an Adobe Acrobat document. I hope this direct link works; you might be required to sign in somewhere. This is on the web site of the Eastern District of Arkansas court. The footnote is on the bottom of page 7.
Says it right there in the footnote. Basically, the court assumed that Clinton and Monica would continue to deny any affair in the absence of any extrinsic evidence, so dwelling on that point would have delayed the trial to an unreasonable degree for no apparent good reason.
That may be your opinion, but Judge Wright didn’t think so. She wrote it may have been material (yes, I admit it was a maybe) to proving intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.
Anyway, (and I’m not saying this as an absolute…if I’m wrong about this, feel free to correct me in a non-abusive manner) wouldn’t lying about it be perjury unless the judge specifically decalred it immaterial? Isn’t a piece of evidence (or testimony) material unless declared otherwise?
True, but that wasn’t the President’s doing. I can only guess that they were looking at the Vernon Jordan angle.
I’ll admit it’s a bit flimsy, but I can also see that if I worked for a state, and had what was from my point of view an unhappy encounter with the governor, I’d certainly be nervous for my job.
Chaim Mattis Keller
[[“Perhaps – got a link or a citation? And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?”
Well, that was a citation, but here’s a link…]] cmkeller
http://209.184.52.2/ecm/dc_images/2509249.PDF ]]
Thanks for the link – BTW, what I meant by a “citation” was something like, “775 F.Supp. 666.”
[[“And if so, on what basis was the evidence excluded?”
Says it right there in the footnote. Basically, the court assumed that Clinton and Monica would continue to deny any affair in the absence of any extrinsic evidence, so dwelling on that point would have delayed the trial to an unreasonable degree for no apparent good reason.]]
Yup – the court also noted, however, that evidence regarding Lewinkski did not bear on any of the core issues of the case.
[[“Perhaps – doesn’t change the fact that indeed it WAS immaterial.”
That may be your opinion, but Judge Wright didn’t think so. She wrote it may have been material (yes, I admit it was a maybe) to proving intent, absence of mistake, motive and habit on the part of the President.]]
She did not rule on the materiality of that evidence one way or another – period. I am confident that the “opinion” of most lawyers would be that such evidence was not material. It may be noted that this seemed to be the opinion of the majority of the House of Representatives (FWIW), since it rejected the Article of Impeachment based on the accusation that he committed perjury in that deposition.
[[Anyway, (and I’m not saying this as an absolute…if I’m wrong about this, feel free to correct me in a non-abusive manner) wouldn’t lying about it be perjury unless the judge specifically decalred it immaterial? Isn’t a piece of evidence (or testimony) material unless declared otherwise?]]
No, that would have to be separately determined.
[[“If anything, it got her kicked out of the White House and into an office in Arlington.”
True, but that wasn’t the President’s doing. I can only guess that they were looking at the Vernon Jordan angle.]]
Which is wholly beside the point – the fact is that canoodling with Clinton diod not in fact advance her government “career.”
[[“Since Jones was not even really an employee of Clinton’s in any real sense, never having the slightest work-related contact with him or any of her peers, that theory can only be described as frivolous.”
I’ll admit it’s a bit flimsy, but I can also see that if I worked for a state, and had what was from my point of view an unhappy encounter with the governor, I’d certainly be nervous for my job.]]
Unfortunately for the validity of her case, the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that such fears were misplaced (putting aside the dubious proposition that her version of the encounter were reasonably accurate).
Big Iron:
And boy, wasn’t that one of the weirdest things you’ve ever seen? (Well, probably not…you’re a lawyer.) I mean, they voted to impeach him for lying about lying, but not for the original lying.
The only rational explanation I heard for this was that the Congressmen who voted for article 2 but not article 1 felt that Clinton was warned by Congress not to lie to Starr’s grand jury, so, while they felt an ordinary lie under oath was forgivable, they couldn’t bring themselves to forgive lying after the warning.
But that was a really strange thing that Congress did there.
So basically, if (hypothetically) Starr decides to try and indict Clinton for perjury in the Jones case after Clinton leaves office, a judge would have to determine then whether or not his testimony was material?
Since the case got settled before ever coming to trial, how would they decide that? Would they make the lawyers play the case out as if it was real, but in simulation? Or would they just try to figure out how that testimony might have been used in an actual court case? If the latter, I’d think they’d probably declare it material, since Judge Wright did point out several things that truthful testimony from Clinton might have proved.
Be that as it may, wouldn’t working in fear be a hostile workplace environment? I mean, if a Playboy calendar can create a hostile workplace environment for women (even without any implication that the owner of that calendar treats his female employees differently from his male ones), I’d think that an unwelcome sexual advance (if it occured) could create one too. (Asking honest question, not disputing your expertise.)
Chaim Mattis Keller
[[So basically, if (hypothetically) Starr decides to try and indict Clinton for perjury in the Jones case after Clinton leaves office, a judge would have to determine then whether or not his testimony was material?]] cmkeller
Yes.
[[Since the case got settled before ever coming to trial, how would they decide that? Would they make the lawyers play the case out as if it was real, but in simulation? Or would they just try to figure out how that testimony might have been used in an actual court case? If the latter, I’d think they’d probably declare it material, since Judge Wright did point out several things that truthful testimony from Clinton might have proved.]]
They would examine the issues in the case and the possible uses to which such testimony might have been put. Nice to get your opinion on the subject (chuckle), but the Judge’s speculation that, under certain circumstances, the testimony MIGHT have been material hardly constitutes a strong statement that it was likely to be material. Collateral evidence (which the Lewinski evidence was at best) needs some foundation to be admitted.
[[“Unfortunately for the validity of her case, the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that such fears were misplaced”
Be that as it may, wouldn’t working in fear be a hostile workplace environment? ]]
No.
[[ I mean, if a Playboy calendar can create a hostile workplace environment for women (even without any implication that the owner of that calendar treats his female employees differently from his male ones), I’d think that an unwelcome sexual advance (if it occured) could create one too. (Asking honest question, not disputing your expertise.)]]
A nudie calendar or two is not enough to constitute a “hostile environment,” i.e., an environment so offensive and hostile to women that it effective alters the terms and conditions of employment. The idea that it could is simply propaganda, largely emanating from those who never gave a fig about sexual harassment until they thought they could pin it on Wild Bill.