Politics As Usual

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Woof.

And now for something completely different.

Here is an excellent letter posted on Andrew Sullivan's website:


Couldn't have said this better myself.

Got to agree. Personally, I was pretty depressed when Kerry got the nod, because of his lack of clear convictions and mandate. Both Dean (I know, I know) and Edwards were much better in this regard. Most Democrats seemed to vote for Kerry not because they liked him, but because he was supposedly the most "electable."

Now we Democrats are stuck with a dead fish, Bush is going to get reelected, and the world is going to shift its blame for Iraq from the person of Bush to the entire population of the US.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you arguing the law was not broken?

Are you answering with a question to avoid responding to the notion that you are assuming if there was an investigation and prosecution, the individual being investigated and prosecuted is guilty? Even after being found not guilty? Why are you doing this? Why, bilmore, why? I can't imagine.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Got to agree. Personally, I was pretty depressed when Kerry got the nod, because of his lack of clear convictions and mandate. Both Dean (I know, I know) and Edwards were much better in this regard. Most Democrats seemed to vote for Kerry not because they liked him, but because he was supposedly the most "electable."

Now we Democrats are stuck with a dead fish, Bush is going to get reelected, and the world is going to shift its blame for Iraq from the person of Bush to the entire population of the US.

Balt has my proxy on this one. I pretty much agree with this and Slave's link to the Sullivan article.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you arguing the law was not broken?

I'm arguing Clinton committed no "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4, which is the standard that applies.

Clinton lied and he should not have. I have not formed an opinion on the materiality of that lie, which I understand is an element of a perjury offense under the governing law. I know others have, and the view of the matter splits, unsurprisingly, on party lines. He lost his bar ticket as a result, presumably because the regulation of the profession requires that we not split hairs over materiality in licensure proceedings as we do under the criminal laws.

Even if a jury would have found materiality, I'm not sure that justified impeachment, or un-justifies the Senate acquittal. Johnson broke the law, too, in the sense that his firing of Stanton violated the law; he was also acquitted by the Senate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you answering with a question to avoid responding to the notion that you are assuming if there was an investigation and prosecution, the individual being investigated and prosecuted is guilty? Even after being found not guilty? Why are you doing this? Why, bilmore, why? I can't imagine.

Whether or not a law was broken is not the same question or whether it was an offense for which he should have been dumped.

edited to correct procedural issue

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm arguing Clinton committed no "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4, which is the standard that applies.

Clinton lied and he should not have. I have not formed an opinion on the materiality of that lie, which I understand is an element of a perjury offense under the governing law. I know others have, and the view of the matter splits, unsurprisingly, on party lines. He lost his bar ticket as a result, presumably because the regulation of the profession requires that we not split hairs over materiality in licensure proceedings as we do under the criminal laws.

Even if a jury would have found materiality, I'm not sure that justified impeachment, or un-justifies the Senate acquittal. Johnson broke the law, too, in the sense that his firing of Stanton violated the law; he was also acquitted by the Senate.

I don't think anyone wants to rehash this debate, but:

1. I think materiality should be judged in connection with the case that procurred the lie. If my memory serves me, the case was thrown out after he lied under oath. Query whether the same result would have been reached had he told the truth.

2. I understand why he lied - it's very human in that situtation. But I also think it is really, really wrong - especially to the plaintiff. Whether he should have been thrown out of office, in hindsite, I don't know. But I think the impeachment was appropriate to at least slap the wrist and give faith in our system that no one is above the law.

[SlaveNoMore]

...that at the mere demand for a donation, the "unemployed-male-known-as-Not Me" immediately ceased posting and went into hiding?

Who else do we want to knock into retirement? NFH?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. I think materiality should be judged in connection with the case that procurred the lie. If my memory serves me, the case was thrown out after he lied under oath. Query whether the same result would have been reached had he told the truth.

I query that as well; I surmise we come up with different answers. But I don't think it hinges on materiality, which is a different standard than mere probitive value. If I lie about thing A, it goes to my credibility on thing B, but it doesn't always make it material within the meaning of perjury law --- it has to be material to the claim at issue, not the credibility of the witness. Otherwise, every lie under oath would be material, and that ain't so.

2. I understand why he lied - it's very human in that situtation. But I also think it is really, really wrong - especially to the plaintiff. Whether he should have been thrown out of office, in hindsite, I don't know. But I think the impeachment was appropriate to at least slap the wrist and give faith in our system that no one is above the law.

What kind of a slap on the wrist do members of this administration deserve, hmmmm? None, I suspect. Personally, I would go for the really rough stuff, but I still don't think it's an impeachment matter. Impeachment isn't about personnel discipline or "sending a message" to make the president straighten up and fly right; it's about hating your horse so much you're willing to change midstream, which right now your party doesn't think is so hot an idea vis-a-vis the current president. Impeachment is bad for the country, but sometimes it's better than the alternative. Not so with Clinton. Even Hank agrees with me on this one.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
...that at the mere demand for a donation, the "unemployed-male-known-as-Not Me" immediately ceased posting and went into hiding?

It was probably the PM you sent assigning a dollar-amount-per-post to the requested donation that sent him away.

Slave, obviously we're gonna have to put you through NPR Pledge Drive School. Hell, if you want to scare prospective donors that badly, you should at least throw in an umbrella or coffee cup or something.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
But I don't think it hinges on materiality, which is a different standard than mere probitive value. If I lie about thing A, it goes to my credibility on thing B, but it doesn't always make it material within the meaning of perjury law --- it has to be material to the claim at issue, not the credibility of the witness. Otherwise, every lie under oath would be material, and that ain't so.

I use material in the securities law way - i.e., it is material is a reasonable investor [juror] would want to know the information before making an investment decision [rendering a verdict].

What kind of a slap on the wrist do members of this administration deserve, hmmmm? None, I suspect. Personally, I would go for the really rough stuff, but I still don't think it's an impeachment matter. Impeachment isn't about personnel discipline or "sending a message" to make the president straighten up and fly right; it's about hating your horse so much you're willing to change midstream, which right now your party doesn't think is so hot an idea vis-a-vis the current president. Impeachment is bad for the country, but sometimes it's better than the alternative. Not so with Clinton. Even Hank agrees with me on this one.

What have they done wrong that is not simply policy related?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Now we Democrats are stuck with a dead fish, Bush is going to get reelected, and the world is going to shift its blame for Iraq from the person of Bush to the entire population of the US.

Alternatively, Kerry will get elected and we will have Bush to blame, at least in part, for prompting us all to elect Kerry.

I don't particularly like Kerry either, although I suspect that -- like Al Gore -- he makes a better leader/governor than a politician, and the things we don't like about him are the latter.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Alternatively, Kerry will get elected and we will have Bush to blame, at least in part, for prompting us all to elect Kerry.

I don't particularly like Kerry either, although I suspect that -- like Al Gore -- he makes a better leader/governor than a politician, and the things we don't like about him are the latter.

I haven't met anyone who's been actually excited about Kerry. Unless Kerry can effectively take an issue or two and catch fire with them, or otherwise receive a personality overhaul, in the next couple of months, this election will almost entirely be a decision about Bush vs. [Generic Democrat].

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I haven't met anyone who's been actually excited about Kerry. Unless Kerry can effectively take an issue or two and catch fire with them, or otherwise receive a personality overhaul, in the next couple of months, this election will almost entirely be a decision about Bush vs. [Generic Democrat].

Since an election is a referendum on the incumbent that is somewhat inevitable. Don't forget, too, that the Dem nominee was set very, very early by historical standards, and so there's plenty of time for Kerry to turn it on.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What have they done wrong that is not simply policy related?

It's probably not possible for a person who agrees with the Administration's policies, or at least finds them to be necessary, to see that the manner in which they were packaged and sold was disingenuous to those of us far closer to the fence.

I don't particularly want to lay out an --- ahem --- nuanced view of why the Administration isn't as dumb as it's now playing on several key Iraq issues, or Medicare reform, or trade policy, or what-have-you, only to be subjected evermore to the "Bush lied!" punchline in response to my posts. The mere contemplation that a GOP politician might not always be truthful remains hil-ar-i-ous to you and Slave and Not Me (in both capitalizations).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
this election will almost entirely be a decision about Bush vs. [Generic Democrat].

Would that it were so. As we all already know, the election is a decision between Bush and [Not Bush], which means the [Not Bush] vote could split among Kerry, Nader, and I Don't Give A Fuck I'm Not Walking To The Polling Place Because There's No TV Between There And Here.