Yet again, I remind counsel :rolleyes: that we’re not in a court of law. Here’s how this works for everyone in this thread except you, or so it seems:
*Bill Clinton can be said to have lied in court if he made statements he knew were not true while under oath.
*Under oath, Clinton said he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
*Monica Lewinsky testified they did have sexual relations, and ennumerated some or all of the occasions on which they had them, going into more detail than anybody wanted to know.
*Bill Clinton later admits in court they had a relationship, and says he had a different understanding of the definition. The statement, incidentally, begins
When earlier, he testified he had no recollection of ever being alone with her.
*Although he testified to a different understanding of the term, if Lewinsky’s testimony is true, they did things that fell under any definition of the term eight or nine times.
*Thus, the question is “Is what she said true?” Given that, after her statements became public, Clinton admitted to things he said he hadn’t done, he changed his story - while still not admitting he’d lied, because he’s a very intelligent man and a lawyer besides - I know of no reason to think she lied. Even Clinton didn’t say she lied.
Thus, it can be reasonably said that someone lied in court even if that person was not convicted of perjury. Gasp. For similar reasons, I also do not forfeit my ability to call someone a murderer even if the person was not convicted of murder.
If only I’d said it was unfair.
Your faith in the legal system doesn’t seem compatible with your lack of knowledge about it, or with your contempt for prosecutors.
Since you’ve only been here a couple of weeks, you’ve got no way of knowing what kind of faith my arguments are made in, and your conclusion that they are in bad faith because my opinions are different than yours is hare-brained.
Actually, an administrator can change your name for you.
If you’re a subscriber; we handle name changes for subscribers all the time.
Just send me an email listing the name(s) you’d like ranked in the order you like them; we have over 50,000 registered names and it’s first come, first served. TubaDiva@aol.com
Turns out I was using the wrong id, not password, and I just got in. So now I must decide whether to subscribe and waste all my time having fun, or work and pay the bills. I’m gonna try to get a few more insults in before next week.
The standard is not whether the question was compound, or complex, but rather, as the court in US v. Yasak said: “[whether] the questions were understandable and plainly clear enough to elicit informed and intelligent responses.”
Now, it’s pretty clear that a guy who graduates from Yale Law School and goes on to become the most powerful man in the world could follow the above listed questions. I have never heard Clinton indicate that he gave his answers not knowing what the questions were, or that he was confused by the questions. Maybe you have some other cases to offer?
Oh, and, although it’s been said already, the fact that Clinton’s lawyer objected at some point in the questioning is of absolutely no avail to your argument. Plus, if you actually read the objection, it’s pretty clear that his lawyer was objecting because he thought Clinton may not remember the precise definition that was being asked about. It is also clear that the court then provided Mr. Clinton with the definition he was being asked about. Finally, I do not see any objections to the other 4 questions that Clinton lied about.
Look, Clinton lied under oath. If you believe a jury would be convinced by your and his weaseling on the one question regarding the precise definition, I disagree. That’s what makes the world go around, I guess. But I’m pretty confident that a vast majority of people would agree with me. Especially when you look at the other four lies he made under oath.
Is a link for someone who wants to follow along. Took me 5 minutes to track from the citation you provided. Thank you. Here is where the court discusses the question:
John also contends that he should not have been convicted of perjury based on his answer to the question of whether he had ever bought or sold marijuana. According to John, this was a “misleading double question” that should have been struck from the record. To support his argument, he cites a “double question” that was asked of another witness at the trial–“did you receive[a subpoena] prior to your incarceration or when he [a fellow conspirator] was incarcerated.” The critical difference between this compound question and the
one asked of John during the grand jury proceedings is that the question to John was intelligible, while the other one was not. We agree with John that a person must be able to understand the question being asked, United States v. Paolicelli , 505 F.2d 1971 (4th Cir. 1974), but we find no basis for concluding that the question asked of him during
the grand jury proceedings was particularly confusing. John dramatically overstates the complexity of the questions to which he had to respond. The questions were neither vague nor misleading.
In United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996, 1002 (7th Cir. 1989), the Seventh Circuit considered a similar case in which a defendant contested his perjury conviction on the basis that he had been asked a question containing a double negative that could not be answered with a simple yes or no response. The Yasak court concluded that when “[p]ut in context, the questions were understandable and plainly clear
enough to elicit informed and intelligent responses.” Id. In this case, as in Yasak , we find no “fundamental ambiguity” that would have required the district court to remove the questions from the jury’s consideration. Id. at 1003. 4 John’s perjury conviction is, therefore, affirmed.
Now these questions show that “bought or sold” marijuana is not compound within the meaning of the law, and I agree with that. The standard is “a person” not the world class smartest person. A number of people here who do not agree with me in general have offered that the definition is less than artful use of the language. It is not just compound once, it is also complex. It consists of four major clauses, the first clause followed by three subparts, the second of those subparts containing an “or” relating it to the third, but not necessarily the first. Each of those subparts then contains a series of conjunctions.
In my 3 weeks on the SDMB, I’m the only one who has admitted making any kind of mistake. Is that not allowed in the culture here. Is it okay for me to go through people’s posts with a fine tooth comb and point out spelling, grammar, etc.? I thought only assholes did that sort of thing. Oh.
Hey, Updike, you’re “I’ve noticed” is attached on the end in a fragment. It’s understood that “you’ve noticed”. You’re the only one posting. But even if you feel you need the clarification, it should be at the front of the sentence. Dick. I mean asshole.
And think of how much time you would save if you’d just stop making them.
I’ve admitted to a couple of mistakes during this thread. But after two-plus days of this, I bet a lot of us are feeling like we made some errors in judgment. If I wasn’t sure I was right and so many people hadn’t posted corroboration to this thread, I’d have quit ages ago.
I don’t change my opinion based on what is popular. And if you were relying of the credibility of Bricker’s statement that “I am a lawyer” you might want to go look at his thread here in the Pit where he had to fire an employee. In that thread he claims that he is a government contactor and admits that he does not practiced law any longer.
There is a multiple irony in this. (1) This is a thread about being fully forthcoming, and there really is a difference between the past and the present and it was weasel in this thread or that one, or both. (2) The other thread is about having to fire an employee for plagarism. Gee, ya think that the claim to have a longer legal career (until the present) in this thread makes it look like he has more experience than he actually does, which is, ahem, a firing offense in the government (and elsewhere). (3) If he’d done that on a government job application, by his standard, he’d be guilty of perjury by his own standard.
I was suggesting you change your opinion based on the incorrect comments you’ve propped it up with.
A quick list of reasons that’s stupid:
a) It indicates he was a lawyer
b) Not being a lawyer anymore doesn’t mean you lose all your legal knowledge
c) I’ve been reading his posts for years, and while I disagree with him a lot of the time, I respect his knowledge of the law
So no, I was not relying on his comments just because I thought he was still a lawyer. I read that thread several days ago, and I think he’d already said in the past that he was not practicing anymore.
Once again, you’re trying to make your ignorance someone else’s dishonesty. Bricker is a lawyer. He is no longer practicing. It’s not his fault if you don’t know what that means.
I didn’t handle the past and present tense very well in that post. Oh well. Regardless, “I am a lawyer” is a statement that you’ve passed the bar and are licensed to practice law, which Bricker is. “I’m not practicing” doesn’t mean you’re not a lawyer.
Would you say that John Roberts is not a lawyer? I mean, he’s a judge, after all, not a lawyer - right? How about Rep. Steny Hoyer. He’s the House Democratic Whip - but not a lawyer, even though he is Georgetown Law grad and practiced law before going to Congress?
I’ve been a participant on this board for five years. I’ve never made any secret of the fact that (a) I am a lawyer, but (b) I no longer practice law. While it’s true that I neglected to lay out my complete biography for you in this thread, it’s equally true that I have not misrepresented myself.
The mere fact that I am not, at this moment, sitting in a courtroom or interviewing a client in a holding cell somewhere does not change my status.
If I get behind on my CLEs again, and the bar suspends me, maybe you’ll have a point.
And the other questions he was asked? And the fact that his lawyer asked the question himself on cross, waiving any objection? Have you addressed that yet?
I will admit, Sherlock, that if you read the “Fired” thread you will catch me in one lie, which I will admit now and hope that the board’s members are compassionate enough to forgive.
I don’t actually work for a company that has a contract with the Department of Widgets. There really is no such agency. I suppose it was inevitable that this would come out.
What an ass. As noted by Bricker and Marley23, it is common English usage to differentiate between the qualifications and legal right to practice some professions and the actual practice of them. Bricker has been open about his status in many threads, when it was relevant. He has also freely admitted in various threads that there are areas of the law in which he is more knowledgable than a layman but not an expert. To cite this thread and the fired thread as evidence that he was dishonest or misleading about being a lawyer is pathetic.
So Scaife paid her to file the lawsuit? Or Scaife helped pay her legal fees to keep it going? There is an enormous difference between the two. Paying someone to file a nuisance suit is lower than low. Paying the expenses to keep an otherwise valid lawsuit going is fairly reasonable.
Evil Captor’s link shows how the settlement that Paula Jones wanted was scuttled by others. That happened well after the suit was filed, obviously.
I was responding to Hentor’s claim that the suit itself was part of a smear fest. That the timing of Jones’ suit implied it was part of a conspiracy. It may have been used by Clinton’s enemies, but I don’t know that Jones filed the lawsuit with anything other than reasonably honest intentions.
