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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

That's what stirred the debate on the meaning of "is". I think a variety of people parsed the ruling, and the definition of sexual contact arguably left out his having his dick touched by a mouth, or something like that. Needless to say, the excuse didn't play much better than the conduct.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Was the answer relevant? I'm betting not because if it was I'm betting the result would have been different, eg: maybe the depo would have been sealed (a Judge can do that, right?)

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.

Who invented the special prosecutor law? As Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton says, "you reap what you sow".

And again, for the non-litigator, I ask, assuming a suit that survives a motion to dismiss and a question that is relevant is there something in the law that let's a defendant being sued lie, if they feel the deposing party is harassing them?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

I didn't say people get prosecuted for perjury in similar cases all the time and burger didn't ask me if it was common. He asked if "someone", an individual would be similarly prosecuted. the answer is yes.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky

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.

that was the one I saw on 20/20. Thank you!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

Spanky and Iron Steve, if Rove testified under oath that MoveOn called for "moderation and restraint" after 9/11, knowing full well that those words were said by another organization, not MoveOn, he should be convicted of perjury, right? To set an example pour les autres?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's what stirred the debate on the meaning of "is". I think a variety of people parsed the ruling, and the definition of sexual contact arguably left out his having his dick touched by a mouth, or something like that. Needless to say, the excuse didn't play much better than the conduct.

I thought that it had to do more with the meaning of "sexual relations" or some such term. Obviously, this defense was a political loser, whatever the law.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's what stirred the debate on the meaning of "is". I think a variety of people parsed the ruling, and the definition of sexual contact arguably left out his having his dick touched by a mouth, or something like that. Needless to say, the excuse didn't play much better than the conduct.

There was no questions he made some lies. If you read the transcript there is no question. Things like - were you ever alone in a room with her - no. I doubt she was giving him head when other people were in the room.

[robustpuppy]

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

Wasn't he disbarred in Arkansas?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Spanky
There was no questions he made some lies. If you read the transcript there is no question. Things like - were you ever alone in a room with her - no. I doubt she was giving him head when other people were in the room.

If you are on the phone with a world leader when receiving head, does that count as being alone with the head-giver (who is obviously not the world leader on the other end of the phone)?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I doubt she was giving him head when other people were in the room.

Yeah, but do you know? People aren't looking for your hypotheses and related questions. If you don't know, why respond? It's a pointless waste of space.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
There was no questions he made some lies. If you read the transcript there is no question. Things like - were you ever alone in a room with her - no. I doubt she was giving him head when other people were in the room.

You mean, you didn't buy the shuck and jive that he could never feel alone in the white house, so of course he was never alone with her?

BTW, ty, yes, the debate was the definition of sexual relations. A google makes me stand corrected. Clinton said "there is no relationship" and seized on the present tense to claim he didn't also lie to the public.

linkola

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Wasn't he disbarred in Arkansas?

He agreed to give up his license. I think for 5 years.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's what stirred the debate on the meaning of "is". I think a variety of people parsed the ruling, and the definition of sexual contact arguably left out his having his dick touched by a mouth, or something like that. Needless to say, the excuse didn't play much better than the conduct.

How about the part where he participated in obtaining the false affidavit from lewinsky in response to Jones' lawyers subpoena to her? Remind me how a lawyer (Clinton) parses that type of act.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
There was no questions he made some lies. If you read the transcript there is no question. Things like - were you ever alone in a room with her - no. I doubt she was giving him head when other people were in the room.

Wasn't baby murderer Arafat on the phone once?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He agreed to give up his license. I think for 5 years.

Who sucked the conversation from the present to an interminable, boring discussion of something that happened years ago and is over? Whoever it was, I think they've been taking lessons from the Admin.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Wasn't baby murderer Arafat on the phone once?

stp, motherfucker!