Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The final Whitewater report reached that conclusion and the general consensus is the same.

There is no definitive Constitutional prohibition or court case stating the rule, but it widely assumed SCOTUS will take this view.

I am going to beat T-Rex to the punch - do you know why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Okay, just I am clear, how does any of that justify perjury?

I didn't say it justified perjury, did I?

Martha Stewart?

They went after her because they thought she did something else. And I didn't say that no one gets prosecuted. I said that had he not been President, no prosecutor would have done what Starr did, and no plaintiff's lawyer would have touched the case.

Being a public figure has benefits and it has drawbacks. If you go in to politics I think you assume a risk. It gets us back to the character issue and why it's relevant. In today's society if you want to be in politics, and especially at the national level, you have to be clean or expect that you can justify your skeletons. Clinton knew the game and he knew the rules.

If you go into politics now, you assume many more risks than you did before the rise of the modern conservative movement. But I agree that Clinton did something stupid.

If Starr did anything but follow the letter of the law in carrying out his duty then he should have been brought to task appropriately. If he was abusing process then Clinton should have raised that issue (I forget did he bring a motion regarding prosecutorial abuse?).

In my life, I aspire to do more than simply abide by the letter of the law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The final Whitewater report reached that conclusion and the general consensus is the same.

There is no definitive Constitutional prohibition or court case stating the rule, but it widely assumed SCOTUS will take this view.

I'll take your word for it, but why?

[Spanky]

Sorry T-Rex - I just don't agree with you. If a President can't be indicted why can he be sued? Presidents should be immune from lawsuits while they are in office. People can wait until they get out to sue them. When the Supreme Court said that the presidency was like any other job that was just insane. I don't want the man with his finger on the button worried about law suits. And obviously, the potential for political abuse is massive.

The other thing I don't get is why Whitewater had a special prosecutor. It happened before Clinton was in the White House so why did it need a special prosecutor?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
The other thing I don't get is why Whitewater had a special prosecutor. It happened before Clinton was in the White House so why did it need a special prosecutor?

Clinton asked Reno to appoint one. She did - Fiske.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'll take your word for it, but why?

Why is this the prevailing view or why should the sitting-President be immune from indictment?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Clinton asked Reno to appoint one. She did - Fiske.

You have got to be kidding. Clinton could have avoided the whole thing? Boy did he call that one wrong. My opinion of his political judgement just dropped a few points.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say it justified perjury, did I?

It seems that you (and dems for years) have been using it as a tacit justification.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They went after her because they thought she did something else. And I didn't say that no one gets prosecuted. I said that had he not been President, no prosecutor would have done what Starr did, and no plaintiff's lawyer would have touched the case.

If wasn't President (or another Executitve Branch official) the special prosecutor law would not have applied, so you are technically correct about Starr, but I am not sure that was your point.

As for Plaintiff's lawyers taking the case, given the facts, I would say if he was a well known person or had deep pockets, someone could have been found. Maybe hank?

In my life, I aspire to do more than simply abide by the letter of the law.

Me too, but along my character compels to abide by the letter of the law. If only Clinton had been of like mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry T-Rex - I just don't agree with you. If a President can't be indicted why can he be sued? Presidents should be immune from lawsuits while they are in office. People can wait until they get out to sue them. When the Supreme Court said that the presidency was like any other job that was just insane. I don't want the man with his finger on the button worried about law suits. And obviously, the potential for political abuse is massive.

I agree with the principle that no man is above the law. But I would think that a court entertaining a suit against the president should be receptive to a motion to stay, unless there's a key witness who is terminal or something.

The other thing I don't get is why Whitewater had a special prosecutor. It happened before Clinton was in the White House so why did it need a special prosecutor?

To avoid a conflict of interest, or the perception thereof. (hank Nixon for firing Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, so that Robert Bork could fire Archibald Cox.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why is this the prevailing view or why should the sitting-President be immune from indictment?

The latter. I was looking for a legal basis, not the policies Spanky just was talking about.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
You have got to be kidding. Clinton could have avoided the whole thing? Boy did he call that one wrong. My opinion of his political judgement just dropped a few points.

A quick Google pulls up [an otherwise very slanted] article by John Dean, lists the following timeline:

"...It began in March 1992, during the presidential campaign. The New York Times published an article linking the Clintons with the Whitewater Development Corporation and the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan - and the story transformed a local Arkansas question into a national issue.

By January 1994, after a year in office, President Clinton became so exasperated with the Congressional and media attention to what he and his wife had, or had not, done that he initiated action. He directed Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint a special prosecutor in an effort to silence the criticism. (At the time, the independent counsel statute had expired, as it was designed to do, automatically, every five years.)

Reno appointed a highly respected Republican attorney, Robert Fiske, from New York City, to serve as a special prosecutor to investigate (and prosecute) any criminal wrongdoing. Six months later, after Fiske was well into his investigation, Congress passed the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.

Reno could have followed the precedent of her predecessor, and declined to file an application with the Special Division to appoint an independent counsel. However, she decided to do otherwise, and suggested the Special Division appoint Fiske. The Special Division, however, selected Kenneth Starr, a former colleague and judge from the District of Columbia Circuit. The rest-as they say--is history."

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have got to be kidding. Clinton could have avoided the whole thing? Boy did he call that one wrong. My opinion of his political judgement just dropped a few points.

Even with that and his behavior that led to impeachment and his obvious contempt and disrespect for that Constitutional process, I didn't think Clinton was a bad president overall through most of 2000, but my opinion of his political judgment fell off the charts with the peace agreement he tried to ram down Israel's throat at the last minute in 2000.

Thank god he didn't get Barak to agree to voluntarily march his people into the Mediterreanean with cement shoes on because I think Arafat may have gone for that one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
It seems that you (and dems for years) have been using it as a tacit justification.

Only if you don't bother to listen to what I'm saying. I think it's a reason to vote against impeachment, but it doesn't justify perjury. Perjury should have consequences -- just not impeachment.

If wasn't President (or another Executitve Branch official) the special prosecutor law would not have applied, so you are technically correct about Starr, but I am not sure that was your point.

Any prosecutor, special or otherwise.

As for Plaintiff's lawyers taking the case, given the facts, I would say if he was a well known person or had deep pockets, someone could have been found. Maybe hank?

I think you're supporting my point about the merits. It's odd to hear this coming from the party of tort reform.

Me too, but along my character compels to abide by the letter of the law. If only Clinton had been of like mind.

Indeed. See my post above re wasted potential.

Afternoon, all.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Any prosecutor, special or otherwise.



I think you're supporting my point about the merits. It's odd to hear this coming from the party of tort reform.


Afternoon, all.

1. But we already ascertained that other prosecutors would touch the case and there are people who have gone to jail for the same offense, no?

2. Actually, I am anti-tort reform.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
His longer quote doesn't make any more sense. Bush did act with restraint, at least relative to the calls by some conservatives to occupy Mecca, etc.

Deja vu all over again -- I said that this morning, and even called it Bush's final hour. Truly, it's the one moment where I've ever admired him, for resisting the urge to turn Kandahar into an ice-skating rink.