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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• RICK SANTORUM: ROVE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: “Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?”
  Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don’t respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s staff told us she agrees with Rove’s remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: “Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn’t speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that’s what the senator believes.”

link

Good for him.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
1) Can an employee bring a sexual harassment suit against their current or former employer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Depends on what's alleged.

I am not a litigator and have forgotten most of what I ever knew (which was not all that much) about civil procedure, which may account for this question:

huh?

Short of no facts what would be the bar? Now, the action could certainly be dismissed, but what about the allegations (assuming there are allegations) could be a bar to bringing it?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps, although you would have to be insane to think that Clinton did not suffer negative consequences from what he did. And the decision to impeach the President ought to be based on quite a bit more than the desire to disincent future perjury.

I am guessing that you don't think that perjury is the type of felony a president should be impeached for?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to say - this is really fun - I felt like the only Republican on the board and now the cavalry has arrived. I am having trouble keeping up let alone posting.

Anyway - for all you that think Clintons lies were not a big deal. Back in 98 I came up with a Syllogism for the Impeachment. I am just curious which questions on this syllogism the Democrats on this board would answer no to.

1) Can an employee bring a sexual harassment suit against their current or former employer?
2) During the discovery period of a suit concerning sexual harassment can the employee ask the employer (defendant) questions about his or her sexual relations with past and current employees in a deposition under oath?
3) If the employer refuses to answer questions under oath can the plaintiff ask the judge to order a defendant to answer a question under oath?
4) Can a judge order a defendant or a witness to answer questions under oath that the judge deems relevant to the case?
5) If the employer lies under oath to a question the court ordered him to answer should that lie be considered perjury (remember the court has already ruled that the question is relevant and ordered him to answer)?
6) Should perjury be considered a felony?
7) Should a President that commits a felony while in office be impeached?

1. Yes
2. I think so
3. I think so
4. I think so
5. I think so
6. This one is easy, yes.
8. Sounds like a high crime to me, so I will say yes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am guessing that you don't think that perjury is the type of felony a president should be impeached for?

Whatever would make you think that? Isnt' that where we started?

Christ, I wish you would stick to fucking the deer. It's the only non-annoying thread you've been in.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [list]RICK SANTORUM: ROVE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: “Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?”


Good for him.

Maybe Tapped should call the Demos and ask them if they would give the same answer about their comrade from NY?

"Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday June 6, 2005, in a radio interview, that the Bush administration's decision to concoct a "fraudulent" war in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust."

"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored." "

Wow. Someone should contact those SIX MILLION dead Jews and ask their reactions. Do democrats have any shame?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
I am not a litigator and have forgotten most of what I ever knew (which was not all that much) about civil procedure, which may account for this question:

huh?

Short of no facts what would be the bar? Now, the action could certainly be dismissed, but what about the allegations (assuming there are allegations) could be a bar to bringing it?

If the question is whether or not you can file a complaint alleging any old thing, the answer is of course, but it may get dismissed. So I figured Spanky was asking whether the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss. And now I've spent far more time thinking about it than I did the first time around.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop

• RICK SANTORUM: ROVE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. This afternoon, Tapped called the offices of every Republican senator and asked their press staff the following: “Does Karl Rove speak for Senator X in his recent comments on liberals and September 11?”
  Several offices had no comment. Many transferred us into voicemail boxes, and we plan to call them back on Monday if they don’t respond. But we got two offices to react. While Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s staff told us she agrees with Rove’s remarks, Rick Santorum's communications director, Robert Traynham, suggested that the Pennsylvanian had a different reaction. He told me: “Karl Rove speaks for himself. He doesn’t speak for the senator. On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that’s what the senator believes.”

link

Good for him.

Ty, please keep me updated as to when TAPPED phones each and every Democrat (and Independent) Senator and Representative and ask them whether:

1) Dick Durbin speaks for them in re Gitmo being a gulag
2) Charlie Rangel speaks for them, as posted above
3) Howard Dean speaks for them when he says [all] Republicans have never worked "an honest day" in their lives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am guessing that you don't think that perjury is the type of felony a president should be impeached for?

I think it would depend on the perjury, but probably not. Impeachment is a political question, not a legal one, IMHO. A President could fairly be impeached for conduct that is not illegal at all.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK Final questions

8) If a public figure commits perjury and is not penalized, won't that make it more difficult to convince people that there could be negative consequences if they commit perjury?

9) Isn't getting people to tell the truth under oath an important element in our judicial system?

8. YES, ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. It's an awful example for the children and makes the Villages job that much harder when raising them.

9. Of paramount importance. the integrity of the system, of our very social contract, is called into question if we don't have a requisite level of respect and compliance with our judicial system.

What's my score?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Whatever would make you think that? Isnt' that where we started?

Christ, I wish you would stick to fucking the deer. It's the only non-annoying thread you've been in.

Why the hate? You wound me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK Final questions

8) If a public figure commits perjury and is not penalized, won't that make it more difficult to convince people that there could be negative consequences if they commit perjury?

9) Isn't getting people to tell the truth under oath an important element in our judicial system?

Why is a felony conviction for perjury not sufficient? Are the $1m in litigation sanctions not sufficient?

It's a wonderful syllogism, but as happens in logic it ignores several mitigating (albeit perhaps not sufficiently so) real-world factors:

1) A sitting president was made subject to a civil suit, with no delay
2) That civil suit had limited factual merit
3) The discovery sought was of limited relevance
4) The discovery sought concerned matters that would be considered private by most people
5) The perjury was evasive testimony.

Had someone other than Clinton given the same testimony in similar circumstances, would the US Attorney likely bring felony perjury charges?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Wow. Someone should contact those SIX MILLION dead Jews and ask their reactions. Do democrats have any shame?

If Rangel said that, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

This business of looking to other members of a party to disavow remarks made by someone with similar views is really very silly. I can see why Republicans tend to think along these lines, since the conservative movement places such a premium on party unity, but this isn't Russia.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the question is whether or not you can file a complaint alleging any old thing, the answer is of course, but it may get dismissed. So I figured Spanky was asking whether the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss. And now I've spent far more time thinking about it than I did the first time around.

Good. My job is done then as you obviously need to think about it more, because your answers to Qs 8 and 9 are off.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it would depend on the perjury, but probably not. Impeachment is a political question, not a legal one, IMHO. A President could fairly be impeached for conduct that is not illegal at all.

Yes he could be, but just because it could happen doesn't make it right. If I was in a majority party in the House or Senate and the President from a minority party was being impeached just because my party did not like his policies, I would not vote for the Impeachment or removal from office.