That’s just incredibly naive. Starr several times requested permission to expand the scope of his investigations into completely new areas that were NOT part of his mandate. He certainly wasn’t given orders to investigate the only thing that in the end, he could find to pin on Clinton. His manipulation of the Jones investigation was crucial to setting up the perjury trap in the first place.
It’s impossible to honestly conclude that Starr was acting in good faith if you know the facts and history of his investigation.
Yes, Capt. Amazing, I know Starr was authorized (though rather after the fact, in the case of the Lewinsky matter) to investigate the President. You had said not just that he was authorized to do so, but that the OIC was not motivated “with the main purpose to cause harm to the to the President,” but of investigating a crime. And I call horsefeathers on that.
I know that Starr was probably motivated by his personal dislike of the president and his desire to get him impeached…I’m not disagreeing with you there. What I’m saying is, the Starr report isn’t malicious under libel laws…it’s the product of someone in an official capacity carrying out his official duties…there’s a presumption of neutrality. (Whether or not that neutrality is real is irrelevant.)
If we’re being allowed to repeat ourselves, I apologize in advance for saying this again, but I can’t allow the Presidential Oath to be used to prove Clinton committed a crime. See,
THE WHOLE THING WAS A PARTISAN WITCH HUNT
Which no one seems to be debating here. Wonderful. And just as murder in defense of one’s nation is no crime, perjury (if indeed there was any) in defense of one’s self and the honor of the presidency in the face of these traitorous, politically fueled attacks is no crime either.
Did Janet Reno stonewall? Good for her. Clinton only made two mistakes – he should have stonewalled too, and he had lousy taste in women. Should have been a celebrity – his approval rating would have jumped to 80 from 60.
And just to be clear on Oaths of the Office, our Presidents job is to serve us capably in his duties as President and Commander in Chief. That’s his number one, primary duty, so the traitorous fuckwads who started the sex trap had it exactly backwards!
If any president needed BJs to more capably perform his duties as , those same traitorous fucks aught to have got down on their knees and fucking provided!
Let’s have no more of this Oath of Office nonsense here.
-Ace
This, you realize, is utterly absurd. There are innumerable instances where the President would be allowed, indeed be required to lie to the public in order to “faithfully execute” his office. Wartime secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and the like come to mind.
So, lying to the public is not a per se violation of the Oath of Office. There may be instances where lying to the public would constitute a violation of the Oath, but the burden is on you to demonstrate that this lie constitutes such a violation.
Ace, as you should be aware, “partisan witch hunt” and “Clinton commited a crime” are not mutually exclusive terms. Either respond to the OP or go pout in a corner.
Well, let me put it this way: if the mendacity of William Jefferson Clinton was worthy of impeachment, then Ronald Reagan should currently be trying to remember where the excercise yard is, and whether he was Bubba’s bitch, or Kareem’s.
Nixon would have been dug up, leaned against the Washington Monument and shot.
My only point with that was that Clinton was undoubtedly a habitual lier. The lies he told over his decades in the public eye have destroyed any shred of credibility with me. Stemming back from the “I smoked but I didn’t inhale” thing all the way to the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” bit.
I’m a lot different than most conservatives in that I don’t care if he indeed did get oral sex from Ms. Lewinski. I would simply expect that as the highest ranking public official in the land, he would have enough respect for the law (wasn’t/isn’t he a lawyer anyway?) to have at least told the truth under oath. The multiple lies he has told over the years have be disbelieving anything he says now.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion. After all, it WAS just a vast, right-wing consipiracy.
What’s the definition of entrapment again? Being enticed into commiting a crime one wouldn’t normally commit, correct? And IIRC, you cannot win a conviction via entrapment.
It wouldn’t be fair to separate the “crime” from the context of overzealous prosecution – exactly my point in Clinton’s case.
Lord Ashtar – please, let’s see cites for the habitual lying. We’re currently debating whether his parsed lawyerly speak in the Paula Jones case was a lie, now you come in and divine that Clinton lied about his marijuana intake? How, using a crystal ball?
You’ve already assumed the lie, and the ‘undoubtedly’ is frivolous – your bias is showing.
Unless, however, you meant he’s a habitual lyre. (It helps your case if you can spell those four letter words.)
No, this doesn’t qualify as entrapment; Ms. Lewinsky didn’t entice him into any act as a agent of the government, and entrapment does not extend to lying to cover yourself from prosecution or from civil action, even if the prosecution or the civil action is overzealous. That’s simply not a defense available to him.
Lord Ashtar:
Clinton’s habits for veracity simply have no probitive value when discussing perjury. Certainly, you might offer previous instances of perjury to show some sort of common plan, scheme, or motive… but you can’t point to other lies and say that makes it more likely that he lied under oath.
Everyone mentioning the oath of office as a predicate for perjury:
Cut it out. That’s absurd. It’s not perjury to promise to perform an action and then later renege on that promise, except in the narrow case of promising to tell the truth in certain judicial proceedings and then failing to do so. Conduct that “violates” the oath of office does not constitute a lie under oath for the purposes of a perjury conviction.
The OP’s question was, “What was the criminal case against Clinton?” In my view, this has been answered satisfactorily. There is certainly enough evidence to sustain not only an indictment, but a conviction – as a matter of law.
Again: if you believe Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, then Mr. Clinton lied under oath, and the matter was material. Certainly his criminal grand jury statements don’t suffer from whatever taint if immateriality the civil rulings gave, since their mandate was toi investigate whether he lied in the civil deposition. When he lied to the criminal grand jury, that lie was material to the criminal case, EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING ISSUE ULTIMATELY WAS FOUND TO BE IMMATERIAL.
However, a reasonable jury could also disbelieve Ms. Lewinsky. If convicted, he would not win an appeal on sufficiency of the evidence; if acquitted, the issue of appeal would obviously not even arise.
Tejota:
(regarding whether Clinton admitted to perjury in his January 2001 statement closing the independent counsel’s case against him)
**
So, when he refers to FAILING “to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely,” how do you interpret that? When he “acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition,” how do you interpret that?
**
If Clinton was innocent, and not paying his own legal bills, why make such an admission? An admission is an admission. If what Tejota is saying is true, it’s perjury yet again. Clinton signed a sworn statement in a court proceeding that he knows isn’t true.
AceOSpades: Interesting use of the phrase “honor of the presidency” and Clinton in the same sentence.
Lord Ashtar:
** And here we have The Big Lie. The thrust of this from the beginning was perjury and obstruction of justice. It was never about the president’s sexual proclivities or sleaziness (though some pointed out the inappropriateness of having whatever-he-wants-to-call-it with a subordinate employee in the workplace).
Some also like to pretend that there are a separate set of rules for answers to sex questions, allowing for perjury in a judicial proceeding. A judge decides what’s an appropriate question to ask and answer; not a witness. That doesn’t work for John Q. Public, and it shouldn’t work for anybody else.
AFAIK, they’re not available on the Internet, nor are they as important to me. And I never said that either qualify as perjury.
SuaSponte
Telling other people what they believe, you should realize, is utterly rude. That one can come up with extreme examples in which a statment would not be true hardly makes it “utterly absurd”.
It may not be per se a violation, but it most certainly is prima facae a violation. As such, the burden is on one claiming it not to be a violation. Now, if you have an argument for why lying to the public was in the interests of the nation, by all means present it. But don’t pretend that the mere possibilty that one might be able to come up with such an explanation is enough to get him off the hook.
Since the OP asks a question regarding the criminal case against Mr. Clinton, I guess I’m a little confused as to why his violation of the oath of office, even assuming he did violate it, is relevant.
Let’s see . . . the duties and powers of the President are laid out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Looking through it I see . . . Commander in Chief of yadda yadda . . . reprieves and pardons . . . make treaties . . . nothing yet, I’m still reading . . . make appointments . . . fill vacancies . . .
I’ll be absolutely buggered if I can see anything in there about not lying during press conferences. Anyone else see it? Because I don’t see it.
