This is an official warning.
You may email an administrator for your password.
You may not reregister under a different name. If you wish to continue to post following your 30 day trial, you must subscribe. Reregistering under a different name to avoid the subscription fee will result in the banning of all your usernames.
Here is the relevant portion of the registration agreement that you agreed to when you registered.
It was out there before. You kept making excuses so you wouldn’t have to respond, and then started raising objections that had nothing to do with what you originally said.
Not what I said. New arguments are fine. I was saying you’re moving the goalposts. People keep satisfying what you ask for, then you say you asked for something else. Three pages ago, you said he never even said what he said under oath. Why didn’t you start with these objections about threatened witnesses? Three pages ago, you thought he never even said these things in court.
If you can discount his testimony, I think I can do that. 
This was deposition in a civil trial. That doesn’t mean a lie isn’t a lie.
This is just dumb. Not a word I’ve said about Clinton has been said because he’s a Democrat or because the topic is sex. Apparently, I am yet another topic you know less about than you claim.
If Lewinsky’s statements about what they did are false, why did Clinton admit what they’d done to the court and the country after his initial testimony that they didn’t have sexual relations?
I too, am unfamiliar with any such case.
Read page 78 again, Bennett started to object and the judge cut him off. Where I come from, that’s a freebie to say the objection was anything later, but particularly since the judge treated it as though it were a problem with understanding, then it does got to the form of the question. Not all judges allow counsel to state the legal grounds of the objection. He made the objection, she cut him off and overruled it and on they went.
Now if I were the judge, I’d let the lawyers state the legal ground but not argue it so as not to appear to coach the witness. But if the witness were sophisticated, such as Clinton being a lawyer, I might prohibit the legal ground to also prevent coaching.
Not only was Clinton a lawyer, but it turns out he was also a law professor. But not just any law professor, one of his former students was in the room during his deposition in the Jones case. I only learned this from Clinton’s book. Yep, it was, drum roll please, Judge Wright. Now, if I were a judge, I would recuse myself in any case where I had once taken a class from one of the litigants, for fear of accusations of favoritism. Judge Wright chose not to do so. Clinton complained in his book that she bore him a grudge because he lost her final exam and she had to retake it. Another reason not to take the case and let it pass to another judge.
Well, a good many of the ones I’ve seen are insults, an undue proportion. I just don’t want to spend as much time over the next several months as it has taken me the past few weeks. This is waaaay too much fun. I’m getting no work done.
Beryl Mooncalf II: Electric Boogaloo.
Geez dudes, chill. I’ve lost my yahoo password, not my SMDB password. So I’ve lost my ability to use this great tag name. Don’t worry, I won’t try to cheat anyone out of money or be a sock puppet. I can’t log in to my Bob Lowlaw yahoo account. I am truly in tears over this. And I don’t have enough info to get them to send me the password. I thought I very carefully wrote down my password when I created it, but noooooo.
So my option would appear to be to set up a new account, pay and notify the mods/admins so I don’t go afoul the sock puppet rules, or stop posting entirely and get my ass back to work. As much fun as this is, I really need to do some work.
Then it is truly her misfortune to have waited and chosen an inopportune time to redress her grievances, because as it was, it simply appeared that her day in court was part of a larger orchestrated effort. Her charges appeared to be a shout in the windstorm of allegations that Clinton was a murdering, coke smuggling, real estate fraudster. The poor girl just chose to wait too long, seeking her day in court at a time that made her seem like a cog in a big partisan smearfest. Makes me want to cry for the injustice of it all.
In other words, IOKIYAR, eh?
Which question?
This one:
Q: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were] . . . President of the United States. (Where the president answered None.)
This one:
Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? (He answered no.)
This one:
Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? (He said it’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.)
This one:
Q: I think I used the term “sexual affair.” And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court? (Where he said I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.
Or
This one
Q: In paragraph eight of [Ms. Lewinsky’s] affidavit, she says this, “I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.” Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it? (He said: That is absolutely true.)
I just need to know what kind of goofy rules you are trying to play by here.
You’re crying as much for her as I am for Clinton. He had the misfortune of choosing an “inopportune” time to lie about his relationship with Lewinsky, during a deposition, it simply “appeared” that he committed the crime of perjury. Poor guy, if he had just chosen a different time to lie about it (like, when it wouldn’t be a crime) then he could have avoided all that impeachment nonsense. Of course, everyone has a right to file suit, at any time, if they feel they’ve been wronged, nobody has the right to lie during testimony.
ElvisL1ves, I’m no fan of frivolous lawsuits, and I don’t like the idea of using them for political gain. I think that having the plaintiff pay the defendant’s reasonable and actual legal bills in the event of frivolous/nuisance lawsuits is a good idea because it will help prevent them. I don’t know if Paula Jones was doing this for inappropriate reasons. Hentor suggests it was part of a larger orchestrated effort, if so, who orchestrated it? Jones saddled herself with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills just to make Clinton look bad at the behest of someone else?
Um, if I think of an argument later, why shouldn’t I be able to raise it later? Is there a time limit? Moving the goalposts? Your burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, I’ve never increased that. Have I asked for more evidence because I didn’t find what you came forward with satisfactory? Yep. I don’t really think that is unfair. Bricker has tried to move the goal post to only enough for a probable cause to indict, and for fun I took the bait and pointed out that no, the definition is as a matter of law not probable cause in my opinion. I am aware of no cases on the point, and neither is Bricker.
I’ve said that what Clinton did was not perjury, and you’ve said it’s criminal perjury. You want to go around saying Clinton is a liar, I really don’t have a problem with that. If he were my buddy and I’d heard the various stories from him and if it mattered to me I would say, “you lied to me buddy, I’m hurt, it made me look like a fool.” But then I’d move on. But I sure as hell am not going to say someone is guilty of criminal perjury unless they have been convicted of it, and in Clinton’s case, I’ll point out what a load of crap the charge is for all the reasons stated: it doesn’t meet the criminal elements. It meets the common social definition of lying. But if the prosecution is allowed to weasel and play LawBall, so is the defense. (Come play LawBall with Bob Loblaw, no habla espanol.)
If he had been asked under oath: “Did ML perform fellatio on you?” or “Did you smoke a cigar that had been in ML’s vagina” and he had said no, I don’t suppose I’d be quite as aggressive in my defense. But instead he was handed a crappy definition that was complicated and poorly written and he played with them. His lawyer objected, the judge cut him off. The definition is in fact objectionable. The questions I’ve posed as clear ones are not objectionable.
You’ve said my reasons earlier were not satisfactory. Too bad, I’ve made my arguments and you’ve made yours. You haven’t convinced me that your position is sound, much less that it is made in good faith and vice versa. I’ve asked many times for citations, and when available, you’ve given it, but none of those citations get around the objections I’ve made. They aren’t good questions, and in the case of ML’s testimony, (1) it’s awfully timid testimony, and (2) I don’t think it says what you think it does. In view of the fact that this was the key prosecution witness, and this timid testimony was the best he could offer Congress, he probably concluded that she wouldn’t remain faithful to his vision of the case on the stand when her lover’s lawyer gave her the opportunity to describe his bullying and to ask her if she made those statements afterward the bullying, and was she absolutely certain, etc.
One of the things that has happened over the years is that I’ve started letting it slide in conversation when people say that Clinton lied and/or perjured himself.
All of this, and particularly your work in finding all the citations (thank you, you’ve done good work), has reminded me of how much I wanted him charged so he could have his day in court back when it was all happening. It reminds me of just how unfair the Republicans were to him. I don’t think that the press and public were unfair to Clinton because they took fully into account the poltical assassination that was being attempted, at the time people were favorably disposed, and they thought that it was politically motivated and bs and that it was a wash. I haven’t argued, as many Clinton supporters did that if he lied/perjured (depending on the pundit) that it was on a trumped up investigation because I don’t think that matters: you don’t perjure in a trumped up investigation. But you can rely on legal objections and principles and play word games provided you dance within the loopholes.
I particularly remember with glee the day Julie Hiatt Steele was not convicted (earlier I probably said she was acquitted, it was a hung jury and Starr decided not to retry. McDougal was acquitted of contempt and there was also a hung jury) because Starr destroyed a lot of lives in his pursuit of Clinton, which was by it’s nature petty. It was petty to investigate the tragic suicide of Vince Foster for a fifth time and it was an abuse of his office to drag everyone through that again. It was petty and an abuse of his office to investigate the perfectly legal firing of the travel office people. It was petty and abusive to investigate and drag out the Whitewater thing yet again, when the Clinton’s were Mr. McDougal’s victims. It was petty and abusive and torture to chain Susan McDougal in solitary. It was petty and abusive for Starr to fail to unequivocally exonerate the Clintons in all the scandals except the Lewinsky one.
As for the Starr office’s handling of the Lewinsky matter, Starr should have disclosed in writing to the AG that he had already advised Jones’ lawyers in that case and recused himself. Assuming that there was probable cause to investigate, and I will agree that level of probable cause existed, Starr should have insisted that someone else do it because he was already adverse to Clinton. That was when he should have gone to Pepperdine.
“LOS ANGELES, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Kenneth Starr, whose probe of President Clinton’s private life divided the nation, said on Wednesday another person should have investigated whether the president lied about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. “I think it would have been much better for the country that the Lewinsky matter should have been handled by another independent counsel…It would have been better, all things considered, for there to have been a new, fresh face,” Starr said in a speech to Town Hall of Los Angeles, a public interest forum.”
Now Starr tries to act as if it were in the best interest of the country after the fact not to prosecute? Well excuse me if I am skeptical. Those arguments were being made at the time, and that passes on Jan 20, 2001, when Clinton is availabe for prosecution. No, Starr did not prosecute Clinton because he knew he would lose, and ordinarily when a prosecutor knows he is going to lose, that means no probable cause to charge, but in Starr’s case, it is also legal cowardice: Starr would have almost certainly been pressued to try the case himself, and he would have been up against Bill Bennett and a charming, likable defendant with a key witness who would testify she had been bullied. Oh, yeah, I was hopin’ for it.
I was asking for a citation to precedent in another case, a published appellate decision.
Thank you for your quote, I’ll read it.
Paula Jones in the end said that she was victimized by both Clinton and his Republican opponents.
When she reported that in Penthouse magazine (and posed nude there too) Ann Coulter called her “trailer trash”.
Last thing I heard of her was in a match against Tonya Harding in Fox TV’s Celebrity Boxing in 2002, she lost.
I seem to recall she settled for money instead of her day in court, which I would have preferred to have seen. She got almost nothing, her lawyers got piles of money
Well, she was certainly used by her temporary Republican friends, but there were plenty of public warnings, so she got what anyone with any sense knew was coming. As for Clinton victimizing her, if she is telling the truth, he dropped trou and propositioned her. And I saw the Penthouse spread, it is not plausibe she was offended: she was full on fucking a man in front of a photographer. Not a defense to a sexual harassment suit, but still. And I don’t often agree with Ann Coulter, but yeah, that’s trash, let’s not insult trailer folks though.
No, you haven’t. You can change your email in the User CP. Your username is not permanently tied to the email you signed up with.
I understood that. I was asking to which question you were seeking an appellate decision regarding.
Sorry, I misunderstood. For the proposition that a perjury conviction can be based on a compound and complex question when there was an objection. Any US jurisdiction, it will be very hard to find.
Cool.
I was thinking: The Wrath of Beryl M
But, yeah. No kidding. :rolleyes: