Weiner comes clean! This is not intended to be a bad pun.

[mhendo]

@Kobal2

Which again has nothing to do with abuse of power.

You are wrong.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So you’ve got nothing.

I believe Paula Jones, for the sake of decency.

[Dewey_Finn]

Why are we rehashing the Bill Clinton story?

[mhendo]

@Dewey_Finn

Why are we rehashing the Bill Clinton story?

You’re right. I said before that i wasn’t going to contribute further to the hijack, and then i did. Apologies, and i will let it go now.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Petty, inconsequential, and unsubstantiated, as he well knows. Why he thinks he’d get away with it confounds me. Paula Jones, "Eagle Beak Paula’, the Heidi of the Ozarks?

Which state trooper? What was his name, when did he testify? And Ms Jones? Seriously? The child has a serious case of the homelies. Not ugly, mind, just not blessed. Bar closing, no other options, maybe.

But Horndog Bill was up to his eyeballs in Class A nookie. Check out the gallery of the women he’s been linked to, and then put Ms Jones picture next for comparison. They were uniformly hawt, she’s so-so.

I’m sorry – did you just suggest that we should disbelieve her sexual harrassment claim because she’s not hot enough for Clinton to have harrassed?

The trooper was Danny Ferguson. His sworn testimony was that he did ride the elevator with Jones, show her Clinton’s room, and then leave.

[mlees]

@elucidator

But Horndog Bill was up to his eyeballs in Class A nookie. Check out the gallery of the women he’s been linked to, and then put Ms Jones picture next for comparison. They were uniformly hawt, she’s so-so.

I wish to point out that availability trumps looks for some guys. I submit Schwarzenegger’s house keeper as evidence. Arnie had access to world class women…

[John_Mace]

@mlees

I wish to point out that availability trumps looks for some guys. I submit Schwarzenegger’s house keeper as evidence. Arnie had access to world class women…

Or Monica Lewinsky. Pre- Weight Watchers, as in the late 90s.

[elucidator]

OK, sure, some guys will stick Mr. Happy into anything, that’s true. I guess I’ll just have to fall back to the position of a complete and utter lack of any evidence, whatsoever. A point made better and in apprpriate legalese by the Federal judge dismissing the case, in no uncertain terms, available here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Paula_Jones_v._William_Clinton/Judge’s_Opinion_Dismissing

[John_Mace]

My memory could be faulty, but I seem to recall Ms. Jones as being a good example of butter-face.

[Evil_Economist]

@elucidator

OK, sure, some guys will stick Mr. Happy into anything, that’s true. I guess I’ll just have to fall back to the position of a complete and utter lack of any evidence, whatsoever. A point made better and in apprpriate legalese by the Federal judge dismissing the case, in no uncertain terms, available here:

Paula Jones v. William Clinton/Judge's Opinion Dismissing - Wikisource, the free online library

Not that familiar with the facts, but i went to your source and saw the following:

The president moves for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff cannot show either quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment under Section 1983 because (a) the record plainly demonstrates that plaintiff did not suffer any tangible job detriment for purposes of establishing a quid pro quo claim, let alone one caused by her purported rejection of Mr. Clinton’s alleged sexual advances, and (b) the alleged actions as described by plaintiff, even resolving all inferences and factual disputes in her favor, do not constitute severe or pervasive abusive conduct for purposes of establishing a hostile work environment claim; (2) if plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim fails, so too does her Section 1985 conspiracy claim …

So if I read this correctly, basically the judge dismissed because what Clinton did wouldn’t reach the level of harassment, even if he actually did it. If I’m reading this correctly, the judge didn’t dismiss because of lack of evidence; therefore the cite you provided doesn’t seem to say what you think it says.

The president argues that the alleged conduct of which plaintiff complains was brief and isolated; did not result in any physical harm or objective symptoms of the requisite severe distress; did not result in distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it; and he had no knowledge of any special condition of plaintiff that would render her particularly susceptible to distress. He argues that plaintiff has failed to identify the kind of clear cut proof that Arkansas courts require for a claim of outrage and that he is therefore entitled to summary judgment. The Court agrees

Am I reading this correctly? Did Clinton essentially admit guilt?

[elucidator]

In English, she says that even if we assumed that all of the facts of the matter were as Ms Jones alleged, it still would not have been a crime, therefore it is not relevent whether her claims were factual or not. Money qoute: “…even resolving all inferences and factual disputes in her favor…”

[UltraVires]

@Evil_Economist

Am I reading this correctly? Did Clinton essentially admit guilt?

No. In a motion for summary judgment, Clinton’s lawyers are basically saying that even if everything that Paula Jones says is true, she still loses. So the judge analyzes the case assuming all allegations are true. When she does that she says that even if Clinton asked her to come to his room, he whipped his dick out, then she turned around and left, that’s not enough for Paula to collect a big pay day. Case dismissed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So getting back to Bricker’s assertion, the judge in that case made a definitive ruling that Bill Clinton did not engage in any abuse of power.

[gonzomax]

Paula was not pretty. The rich rightys got her a nose job. They had a couple feet hacked off her beak, so she would look better.
I neither believe or disbelieve her. In most he said/she saids, I stay out. I have no way of knowing the truth.

[Evil_Economist]

@elucidator

In English, she says that even if we assumed that all of the facts of the matter were as Ms Jones alleged, it still would not have been a crime, therefore it is not relevent whether her claims were factual or not. Money qoute: “…even resolving all inferences and factual disputes in her favor…”

@jtgain

No. In a motion for summary judgment, Clinton’s lawyers are basically saying that even if everything that Paula Jones says is true, she still loses. So the judge analyzes the case assuming all allegations are true. When she does that she says that even if Clinton asked her to come to his room, he whipped his dick out, then she turned around and left, that’s not enough for Paula to collect a big pay day. Case dismissed.

OK, I understand; Clinton didn’t admit anything, he was just making an argument.

However, the claim that the judge threw out the case because of lack of evidence is also wrong. He threw out the case because there was no evidence of damages, not because there was no evidence of the hotel room incident actually happening.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So getting back to Bricker’s assertion, the judge in that case made a definitive ruling that Bill Clinton did not engage in any abuse of power.

Are we discussing whether there was evidence that the incident actually happened (it looks like at least the part where she was brought up to his room did happen), or whether there was abuse of his power (which apparently didn’t happen, unless you think that asking a state trooper to bring a women up to your room is de facto abuse of power, which seems like a stretch to me)?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Could y’all please go fight about Clinton somewhere else?

[Jack_Batty]

Yeah, like 1998.

[Kobal2]

@mhendo

You are wrong.

Convincing.

[Autolycus]

I wonder if Clinton still plays the saxophone.

[John_Mace]

@Jack_Batty

Yeah, like 1998.

Amen!