We seem to know it, but if you look deeper everything’s only rumor that gets passed around Washington so many times that it’s become Received Wisdom.
“Trust in God and keep your powder dry.” - Cromwell
In the first paragraph of this post is you say all drunks are drunks, and that it doesn’t matter if they can drive or not. Thus you say, all perjury is equal.
In the second paragraph of this post you say, if Plame was a desk jockey it doesn’t matter because lives weren’t endangered. Hypocrisy?
It does matter who told him, because Cheney’s actions would need to be investigated - that’s how you determine he did not divulge her identity as retribution or do anything illegal. But Libby decided that even investigating Cheney would be too politically damaging and opted to lie about it. (That’s how this looks, anyway.) That’s not okay, and it’s not irrelevant. He obstructed an investigation for political purposes.
That’s nobody’s fault but Libby’s. Lying to a prosecutor is lying to a prosecutor, and it is not a technicality. It’s not a technicality that Dick Cheney is not the same person as ‘a journalist whose name I cannot recall.’
Why? Presumably, they both have clearance. I could easily see Libby saying “Who the Hell is this Wilson guy?”, and Cheney replying “Oh, he’s married to some CIA agent. Tennent told me. Probably some disgruntled member of the Agency with an anti-war agenda.” Libby says “Oh.” and that’s the end of it for quite some time. Later, when Libby’s talking to reporters about the whole yellowcake disaster (and after he’s searched public records on who Wilson is married to, perhaps out of curiosity) he drops her name to suggest Wilson’s claims need caveats. Then
Novak decides now would be the perfect time to screw Wilson. The rest, as they say, is history.
Of course that’s quite possibly not what really happened, but it’s not implausible, or even unlikely. Is there truly grounds to presume guilt on Cheney’s part and launch a full-scale investigation? The mere act of investigating someone damages them these days. Guilt is not a requirement, only doubt.
Like I said, it’s all very ugly, in my mind. I should be happy, as it’s the Republicans are the ones getting screwed, but if the Dems really try to make hay out of this, I would bet large sums of money it will come back to haunt them some day. I cannot say for certain if the scandal element here isn’t a direct result of ire over the Clinton impeachment. When does the destructive feudalism find a limit?
My recollection is that the Lewinsky story hit in Jan 98. I’ll let you look that up and see if I’m right. (I am.)
A fellow named Bricker interpreting the verdict as “not throw him out of office” isn’t true. The jurors were asked, if my recollection serves me correctly again (and it does) to vote “guilty” or “not guilty” on three charges. It required 2/3 vote to find him “guilty”, and they didn’t meet that standard.
The problem here is that there are many people who wish to re-write history. This business about some guy named Bricker deciding that all the jury of Senators decided was that it meant was he wasn’t removed from office is a personal interpretation of history. He’s entitled to that, and so is anyone else. But it’s just that, an interpretation. One not based on the fact of the “not guilty” verdict and so many sour grapes. Just like the definition of sexual relations was badly written.
Clinton was found civilly liable of a civil contempt by Judge Wright. Any lawyer who mouths off in court gets the same thing. He was disbarred in a non-judicial proceeding in the Arkansas bar that voted along party lines, again, not a criminal proceeding. He was disbarred from the US Supreme Court, again not a criminal proceeding.
What surprises me is that you really are as just a pussy pushover. A prosecutor was appointed to prosecute a person, not a crime, and all they came up with in the end was that all the public was convinced he cheated on his wife and was not forthcoming, and much of the public believe Clinton was guilty of perjury. Sorry, but a charge of perjury was brought, he was found not guilty, those were the jurors exact words. As for a criminal charge for which he might serve time, it is theoritically possible to bring one when he was out of office. Starr did not do so, neither did his successor. That’s what prosecutors do, they bring charges when they think they have enough evidence. They did not, despite the fact that they pretty clearly had a hard-on for Clinton and were willing to advise Paula Jones’ lawyers and investigate every salacious allegation.
Clinton may be an adulterer, but he is innocent of any criminal wrongdoing.
Oh, yes, Pit dressing: those who do not agree completely are morons, can’t read, can’t write, hate with fury of dozen nightlights, waste of toilet paper, etc.
Because he didn’t contact her genitals or anus.
The closest Clinton came to sexual relations per the definition was putting a cigar in her vagina. But in fact, it isn’t clear that Clinton put the cigar in her vagina, the testimony from Monica seems to be that she did it.
He isn’t guilty of perjury related to number 1 if he did not intend to gratify her.
He isn’t guilty of the first part of the disjunctive of number 2 because he didn’t he didn’t touch her genitals or anus, and that isn’t disputed. He isn’t guilty of perjury for the second part of the disjunctive of number 2 because she used the cigar and then gave it to him. http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/clinton/story/cigar.asp
He isn’t guilty of perjury related to number 3 because Monica’s genitals or anus didn’t come in contact with his body.
This isn’t even a case where it can be read both ways, it can only be reasonably read Clinton’s way, which he is entitled to anyway under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. It’s just sloppy. But again, nobody explains why a direct question wasn’t asked. I gather that no one has an argument there.
Not that I really give two shits about this but:
If you read what Bricker posted earlier it says clearly that he stimulated her with his fingers…or does that not count for contact? Besides, its another of these logical hoops folks seem to love making on this…because certainly SHE had contact with HIS genitals, unless her mouth doesn’t count for contact of course.
All I know is, Clinton made out on this thing like a bandit…he got 10 blowjobs without having to do basically anything but finger ole Monica. If that don’t beat all…
-XT
All I know is if I have to read any more about cigars in Monica’s coochie or Clinton’s semen on a dress I’m going to barf. Sex scandals are just the worst, man. The. Worst.
Yeah, reading through Brickers cites I was feeling more than a little ill. As I said, I don’t really care about this one way or the other…but its interesting that Bob Loblaw didn’t even acknowledge Brickers cites, but instead seemed to be talking loudly with his fingers in his ears and jumping though hoops like a poodle on speed.
-XT
My only source here is Wikipedia, but Bricker may have been wrong - their article about impeachment in the US says that there is first a vote to convict the person being impeached, and THEN comes a punishment phase, which can include removal from office.
I asked if the blowjob component of the story was common knowledge in Jan. '98. I know the scandal that Clinton had been involved with an intern had already broken. Do you have a cite for the question I actually asked?
Could you translate that into English?
You keep saying this as if I (or anyone) ever claimed he was found guilty. Will you kindly figure out a way to understand the difference between “I think he did it” and “he was found guilty?”
The entire impeachment proceeding was a sham, and I discussed some of its ridiculousless 20-odd posts before you entered this thread to display your misunderstanding skills. That does not mean Clinton didn’t lie in court, even if the Senate, which of course considered only his guilt or innocence and ignored politics altogether*, did not quite reach its standard for conviction. Unless you’ve got some questions about the Lewinsky testimony, I think we’ve backed up the ‘he lied under oath’ thing pretty well.
*As proof of the Senate’s devotion to the evidence, political considerations be damned, I note that the impeachment votes for obstruction of jutsice fell exactly along party lines (50-50), and the perjury nearly so (45 Republicans for, 50 Democrats and 5 Republicans against). That’s just how impartial those Senators are.
“The person” means Clinton. He acknowledges in the testimony that that’s how it’s intended to be read.
You sure it’s not disputed?
Also disputed.
Nobody is able to answer it, but I don’t know what you’re saying it means.
Bob Loblaw: you are completely and utterly wrong. I know that, given the amount of work and cites that have been provided to you already, my statement will not penetrate the vastness of your density, but you are wrong.
Let’s face it: this guy probably has an event horizon, a spacetime boundary from which no light can escape. In space, nobody can hear you bang your head on the keyboard and scream. That kind of thing.
Then show me the criminal conviction. It still doesn’t exist.
It’s your density that is utterly vast as the reaches of space. You guys were asserting for a full page of the thread that the Senate only voted on whether to remove from office. That was so childishly wrong that one of you suggested it might be wrong. The rest are silent. How about agreeing that Bricker was simply wrong? Or does that not happen here? “Guity” or “not guilty”, I remember them voting and counting each vote on live.
And I still can’t figure why they didn’t ask the question “Did she perform fellatio on you?” The closest I’ve seen to an answer is that maybe they didn’t know. Although I seem to recall that Linda Tripp was getting details from Monica the day they were happening and relaying them to the civil team, so they knew.
Now, I gather that a bunch of the folks really like the way the “sexual relations” thing was definded and actually prefer it to asking the question directly because mine is the only criticism of it that I’ve seen here. Nobody else seems to think that it is at all worthy of criticism to do it that way. And that is why I think the other folks are not interested in real exchange of ideas, you guys can’t admit when you are wrong in the slightest detail, whereas I was and am able to admit error when I mistook the Jones depo transcript for grand jury testimony and admitted it.
No, I don’t think I will agree with you guys because you are simply wrong and don’t admit you are wrong when you make errors. The standard for a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, and your definition is in your best scenario ambiguous, and you are wrong. I will stick with the majority of the jurors and give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
Initially I felt quite burned by Clinton when he admitted he got the blow job, but I’ve reviewed the case in the light most favorable to Clinton, and concluded for myself that he was within a reasonable interpretation of the questions to answer the way he did.
I ask this with some seriousness: do you only read every other post?
That’s not the standard for a civil case.
At least someone can get through to you: you.
Perhaps this is the time to point out that it’s recruitment time for the “Liberal but not a fucking lunatic society”?
Perhaps it’s time to start writing “all is forgiven” letters to Reeder. 
I think one of the differences in opinion that we are having is one of a presumption of innocence of the crime of perjury, and that any conflict in the facts or interpretation must be judged to meet the highest standard in the law: guilty beyond a reaonable doubt.
I can certainly see how you guys can get a personal conviction of guilt from reading the “sexual relations” definition, but only if you chose to read it from the point of view of the prosecutor and ignore that Clinton’s reading of it is possilbe “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Yeah, he is sitting there knowing he got a blow job, and he is sitting there thinking “can I reasonably get out of this by saying no to the question and it doesn’t encompass it, and yes indeed, it doesn’t seem to hit upon it because he didn’t touch her in the way argued above.” But they aren’t asking “did Lewinsky give you a blowjob”. They are asking: did she have sexual relations in this room? In that hall? At any time? And he’s looking at the definition and reasonably thinking, geez, these putz’s didn’t put what I did in here. If they aren’t going to ask, I’m not going to volunteer. And he is not obliged to volunteer. He is obliged to answer the question truthfully as he understands it. And he maintains he did.
So the Senate jury votes not guilty. The special prosecutor decides not to bring charges. And this is the prosecutor’s only case, so it is not a case of it competing with other cases for resources. A prosecutor’s duty is to prosecute crimes. In the absence of competing criminals and crimes, a prosecutor that has only one possible crime to occupy his time and professional sworn duty that doesn’t bring a charge would seem to me to have concluded that he had insufficient evidence to prosecute. Either that or he is derelict in his duty. Now maybe Starr had political motives too (I think he did), but even his successor didn’t bring charges once Clinton was out of office, and could have and should have. So we have two prosecutors who had only one case and didn’t bring a charge. Now remember, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Neither Starr nor his successor did.
Now putting aside that you are all entitled to your own private opinions, but that isn’t really what we are talking about: you guys are willing to convict a man of the crime of perjury in the court of public opinion without an assumption of innocence, without a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and when his political enemy as a special prosecutor with one case declined to do so. That’s despicable.
I’m not talking about a personal opinion that he mislead me about his adultery, which I think he did, I resent he did, and I think it was none of my business and he should not have been foolish enough to get caught, and I resent that too. I’m talking about publicly declaring he is guilty of the crime of perjury. It’s the height of irresponsibility to accuse someone of a crime.
But let me tell you something else. I think Tom Delay is innocent, and I’m willing to say that I also assume that there is an innocent explanation for the Plame outing. I may change my tune after a conviction, but I won’t beforehand. And I don’t like Delay’s policies or the Bush appartchaks. (In fact, I hate them. I don’t hate Delay, I don’t know enough about him.)
But we’re discussing whether he “is guilty of perjury”, and that is a criminal charge.
Judge Wright found him in contempt of court civilly and fined him, but that is not “guilty of perjury”. The legal standard is a whole lot higher for criminal charges, and there is not only room for doubt, but rather, if looked at from a point of view giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt, as he is legally entitled to, there is room for a reasonable person to say “not only could
Clinton reasonably have interpreted it his way, but I don’t think that it is reasonble to interpret it any other way.”
If by that you mean an open admission that criminally accused people are assumed to be guilty and have the burden of proof to a standard to be named later, yeah, it’s high time to do that if supposed liberals are going to abandon the rights of the accused. You are aware that most countries in the world assume the accused to be guilty and they have a heavy burden to escape conviction? (France and other civil law countries.)