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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

I'm sure Scaife will be paying someone to do that.

Journalists and partisans can and will keep a story alive by asking these questions, as dumb as they are. I was just crediting Santorum's spokesperson, who gave a classy answer. And I think it's too bad that TAPPED suggested he said that only because of political heat.

BTW, Rove was lying when he attributed that "moderate and restrained" thing to MoveOn.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I agree with that. I was thinking along the lines of some sort of gross incompetence or something.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

4) The discovery sought concerned matters that would be considered private by most people

Again, for the non-litigator, in a deposition, what is the "privacy" objection to a question or line of questions arguably designed to obtain relevant information?

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

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

back when this was fresh, 20/20, I believe (i think it was Cathryn Crier) did a story on people who were actually prosecuted for perjury in very similar (except for the president aspect) circumstances. I can't remember the facts but I recall the story profiled 2 or 3 people who actually served time for very similar perjurious events, eg: they lied about what could be characterized as irrelevant affairs in depos or on the stand.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Again, for the non-litigator, in a deposition, what is the "privacy" objection to a question or line of questions arguably designed to obtain relevant information?

Real-world question, not legal question. A gentleman never tells, as Slave reminds us every day.

back when this was fresh, 20/20, I believe (i think it was Cathryn Crier) did a story on people who were actually prosecuted for perjury in very similar (except for the president aspect) circumstances. I can't remember the facts but I recall the story profiled 2 or 3 people who actually served time for very similar perjurious events, eg: they lied about what could be characterized as irrelevant affairs in depos or on the stand.

can you supply the denominator?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Rangel said that, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

He should resign or apologize, but I am not holding my breath.

I wonder the MSM did not pick this up the way they have the Rove story?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Again, for the non-litigator, in a deposition, what is the "privacy" objection to a question or line of questions arguably designed to obtain relevant information?

I don't know what the law is on this, but I have instructed a witness not to answer a question in a deposition about where she lived because she was being stalked -- unrelated to the case -- and didn't want her address in the public record. When I explained this to the other attorney, he was initially difficult about it, but after a couple of minutes decided he could live without it.

The people deposing Clinton were not interesting in being reasonable. They were using the litigation as a means to harass a sitting President.

back when this was fresh, 20/20, I believe (i think it was Cathryn Crier) did a story on people who were actually prosecuted for perjury in very similar (except for the president aspect) circumstances. I can't remember the facts but I recall the story profiled 2 or 3 people who actually served time for very similar perjurious events, eg: they lied about what could be characterized as irrelevant affairs in depos or on the stand.

Baseball players hit 70 home runs in a season all the time. Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire have done it in the last few years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The people deposing Clinton were not interesting in being reasonable. They were using the litigation as a means to harass a sitting President.

They did get a ruling from the judge on relevance though.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Real-world question, not legal question. A gentleman never tells, as Slave reminds us every day.

The arena was not the real world, it was the courts, so the analysis should have been a legal one. It's not polite to ask a women her age (according to adage) but that's not a bar a woman can raise to having to answer it on the stand if it is relevant.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

can you supply the denominator?

You asked Had someone other than Clinton given the same testimony in similar circumstances

My answer to that question is yes. My back up is that at the time, a news organization apparently invented your question and sought to answer it themselves. I can only assume that there sample was huge, but it doesn't change the fact that the answer is yes, there are those someones, all of whom, like Clinton, were unfortunate enough to have been the exceptions.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why is a felony conviction for perjury not sufficient?

As far as I know he was never convicted of Perjury. He wasn't even disbarred.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are the $1m in litigation sanctions not sufficient?

Following this logic anyone who pays a lot for their defense should get off.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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

I disagree with their decision, but the Supreme Court overwhelmingly said it was OK.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) That civil suit had limited factual merit

But that is irrelevant to the perjury. The laws surrounding perjury, as far as I know, don't say that perjury is OK for the defendant if the plaintiff has a weak case.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
3) The discovery sought was of limited relevance

The judge thought it was relevant. Isn't that the only opinion that matters? So if you are appealing a perjury charge can you claim - well I lied under oath but the judge was wrong in thinking that the questions asked were relevant.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
4) The discovery sought concerned matters that would be considered private by most people

Why is that relevant. It is the legal system. There was case precedence that said that in a sexual harassment suit a plaintiff can ask the defendant about their past sexual relations with other employees. Why is it relevant what people think about that precedent?

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
5) The perjury was evasive testimony.

I don't see why this is relevant. It is still perjury

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Had someone other than Clinton given the same testimony in similar circumstances, would the US Attorney likely bring felony perjury charges?

I think if it was conclusively discovered that someone was lying - then yes. Do you remember that woman that testified at the congressional hearings who was working in a federal hospital who lied under oath about an affair with an employee and she was given a jail sentence? At the time of her testimony she was under probation and had location tag around her leg.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
The arena was not the real world, it was the courts, so the analysis should have been a legal one. It's not polite to ask a women her age (according to adage) but that's not a bar a woman can raise to having to answer it on the stand if it is relevant.




You asked Had someone other than Clinton given the same testimony in similar circumstances

My answer to that question is yes. My back up is that at the time, a news organization apparently invented your question and sought to answer it themselves. I can only assume that there sample was huge, but it doesn't change the fact that the answer is yes, there are those someones, all of whom, like Clinton, were unfortunate enough to have been the exceptions.

1) I was going off of Spanky's syllogism, which related to impeachment, not a trial for perjury in teh courts.

2) Yes, they exist. But if the percent is 1 or 100, then the claims of improper motivation for the impeachment might be bolstered or weakened accordingly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They did get a ruling from the judge on relevance though.

True. Germane to an impeachment vote, perhaps, if not to perjury.

I seem to recall that the ruling had some definitions of terms that made what Clinton said plausibly accurate, if clearly mendacious in the ordinary context. Do I recall this wrong?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
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?

100% A+

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Journalists and partisans can and will keep a story alive by asking these questions, as dumb as they are.

2

BTW, Rove was lying when he attributed that "moderate and restrained" thing to MoveOn.

I don't think anyone is denying those actual words came from Pariser's own petition, prior to his work with MoveOn. It was also primarily for this work - it has been said - that he was recruited to work for MoveOn. The Tapped article you quote hardly refutes that they had ties prior to 2002.

I'm trying to find the words to MoveOn's own "Justice, Not Terror" petition, but its been removed from their website.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The people deposing Clinton were not interesting in being reasonable. They were using the litigation as a means to harass a sitting President.

However, in this case the judge was sitting right there to determine if the question was relevant. The deposition concerned the sexual harassment law suit, not the impeachment. So the information was ruled relevent to the law suit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Real-world question, not legal question. A gentleman never tells, as Slave reminds us every day.

hey now!!!!