I should rephrase: Bricker and I both quoted summaries of her testimony. Mine was directly from the Starr Report, and I identified it as such. His may have been as well. (I guess you thought that was a signal to ignore it.)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. By the time of the impeachment trial, everyone knew about the BJs. The prosecutor, Starr and his successor, still had the right to charge Clinton after he was no longer in office. That’s what I’m referring to.
Oh, and I missed the links to the Monica testimony. Please repost. I suspect that you and Bricker just quoted or paraphrased, and that really isn’t good enough for me.
Ah, simulpost. Sorry. Yeah, summaries of testimony from the Starr report is bullshit and the work of an advocate not even prepared to debate here. I’m prepared to review actual testimony, not propaganda and spin on what Ken Starr argued she said. And you should not have been satisfied with summaries either. The CNN posting of Clinton’s testimony is good enough to be considered authentic.
Here is Brickers post.
I’m not going to repost it here…you can use the link. There are several other similar posts on that same page that you seemingly ignored. If the information is wrong or not complete enough, generally a post stating that would be helpful, instead of seemingly ignoring them all together.
-XT
Fuck you. I’m not doing extra work because you’re too stupid to click the Page 3 button. Read posts 130 and 137. I quoted directly from the Starr Report, and Bricker may have done the same. If you’re saying Starr may have inaccurately summarized her explicit testimony, I expect you to provide some evidence to support that idea. I’m not searching the 'net for her testimony to compare it chapter and verse to the summary of the testimony. At some point, you’ve got to either do a tiny bit of work here or just admit you’re a lazy douchebag. Go back one page in this thread if you plan to even claim you’re not that douchebag.
Yeah, I saw that, I asked for page and line a long time ago. The page and line stuff is only from Clinton’s depo, and we’ve already dealt with that.
Starr summarizes Monica’s testimoy and I want page and line. Starr’s summary is an interpretation (and his prosecutorial abuse in requesting jurisdiction in a case he had advised the Plaintiff’s lawyers on without disclosing is just disgusting). So I’m not interested in what Starr argues Monica said under oath, but rather what she testified to. Now also remember that we have a right to confront witnesses in this country, and that Clinton did not have that in the Lewinsky case. Moreover, Starr may have required Lewinsky to lie, as he tried to do with Julie Hiatt Steele according to Steele: Starr charged her and tried her, and the jury handed him his ass: she accused Starr of suborning perjury from her. Any testimony that Starr might have extorted from Lewinsky would be subject to attack on the same basis.
And you guys should be just as suspicious of any non-cross examined “testimony” that Starr argues about. Monica did say that she was intimidated and threatened before cutting a deal with Starr that required her to stop making those charges.
Okay, fine, here are a number of excerpts from her testimony. I’m sorry if anything becomes muddy because I’ve tried to keep this from being enormously long. My edits are in brackets, some other ellipses are in the testimony. And here’s the goddamn link. This spans much of her August 6, 1998 testimony. I’m not sure where some of the other information comes from. I hope that, at least, this includes enough examples.
Went back read page 3 of the thread again, and still don’t see any citations to testimony, including posts 130 to 137.
Since you are relying on the testimony of Lewinsky, it is your duty to provide such testimony, I object to the summaries (let’s see if I can lawyerize this) as argumentative, not best evidence and not under oath.
Look, I read that stuff the first time, the second time and the third time and twice since. It’s not evidence, it is an argument and put forward by Starr. Even if you can find the grand jury testimony, I’m going to object to it on the ground that it lacked an opportunity to confront the witness and on the ground that Julie Hiatt Steel won her obstruction case against Starr’s office where she claimed he wanted her to lie about Clinton. There is no reason to believe he did not do the same to Monica Lewinsky because she claimed she did.
Do you contend that it is fair to an accused to use testimony that doesn’t offer an opportunity to cross examine? It isn’t.
All the arguments people have made in this thread ignore the rights of the accused: the right to trial by jury, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to confront witnesses, the right to testify on one’s own behalf (have your Clinton’s lawyer ask the question and explain how he interpreted the “definition”", the right to have a qualified lawyer argue his case.
The only time that came close was during the Senate trial, where Clinton had legal counsel. I watched that trial, and Clinton’s lawyers wiped the floor with the House Impeachment managers. They couldn’t even get all the Republicans to go along with their crap case.
Starr and his successor didn’t charge Clinton after he left office because they knew that if Clinton had rights of the accused, he would tear their case to pieces, the way Julie Hiatt Steele did with far less resources. They knew that if they repeated their “Clinton is guilty of perjury” lie enough in the press that they could convict him in the press, whereas in court, where Clinton had a full panoply of rights that he would have torn Starr’s team new poopers.
I just did
So you’ve bothered to ask because…
Speaking of argument by repetition, you’ve never managed to explain why that’s true.
I’m relieved that we’ve determined that Republican hypocrisy is, again, Clinton’s fault. 
Okay, I’ve read your quote. Here’s the paraphrase of the specific and there is only one: “Did your genitals touch? Yes, they grazed.” Sorry, but that’s tentative at best. Now, if you were Clinton’s lawyer, might you argue that you were entitled to cross-examine? That grazing was accidental and not within the definition? That Monica’s interpretation of the definition isn’t relevant. Even assuming that Clinton might not be allowed to offer Hiatt Steele to show Starr was intimidating witnesses, suppose that Lewinsky became even more tentative on the stand and talked about the threats Starr made and how he pushed her.
Sorry Charlie, but Starrkissed was Chicken of a Trial for good reason. The testimony you quoted isn’t any better than it was in 98 for purposes of a criminal conviction.
Believe it or not dude, these guys claim to be non-Republicans. They drink the Kool Aid.
That lame assed three page quote from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony? Not your fault it is lame assed, that’s what it is. You didn’t do the questioning, but it’s only slightly better than the yellowcake WMD case. We all agree that she gave him blow jobs, but if this is so convincing, convincing to you beyond a reasonable doubt, why didn’t the prosecutor charge after Clinton left office. Because that is weak ass testimony. All Clinton’s lawyer has to do is ask Lewinsky to testify about the threats made to her by Starr and ask her what she was sure of before those threats.
Ah, now Clinton didn’t lie because he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine a witness. Excellent. Here I thought we were asking if the pair’s actions met the definition of sexual relations and Clinton said they did not have sexual relations. How fortunate that you’re considerate enough to change the subject.
Anyway, I’m glad you read page three from 8/6/98, with this exchange in mind:
Betcha she bit her hand to stifle the noises and orgasms she had while she was blowing him and he wasn’t touching her with the intent to arouse. Good show again.
Never said you weren’t using it correctly, Sparky. Just that you were blindly parroting it, since you’d obviously seen it used before, and just as obviously had never used it yourself. Or perhaps you were merely spelling it the way you pronounce it when you try to seem hip in real life?
Keep reading, Bob. And I’m definitely not a Republican. I’m just able to look at different sides of an issue because my IQ surpasses room temperature.
And you know, I’m still a little confused here. Are you arguing that Bill’s weaselling wasn’t really weaselling? Or that Monica lied? Oh, ok, she lied because she was threatened by Kenny, is that it?
Fuck’s sake. He was impeached. He got off. He was still popular enough to have won a third term had it been legal. The current crop of neocons and RINOs in Congress are hypocrites. Deal with it.
Another parroted phrase. At least you can probably pronounce this one. I’m starting to wish I was a Republican- the idea of sharing a political party with you is embarrassing.
No, I just spelled it wrong. That is exactly what I intended to call Bush’s flunkies.
I didn’t say it didn’t. I’m sure it’s at least twice the room temperature of the room I’m in. I’m able to look at both sides of an issue to, and when I’m done with the Clinton thing, it looks like as much of a railroading now as it did back then.