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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
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.

Hey, I'm not a clinton lawyer, so i can't be sure.

it plays about like 18 1/2 minutes of silence, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Was the answer relevant? I'm betting not.

Yes. You ask witnesses where they live so you can subpoena them at trial. My point is that in much of law practice, you can find ways to strike a compromise so that each side gets what they need. I think I offered to accept the subpoena for the witness. In Clinton's case, they were trying to embarrass him and harm his presidency. Which is why Spanky thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong. (Although I tend to disagree. I think the judge should have kept the plaintiff on a much shorter leash.)

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

I think we can thank Nixon for that. And it was charmingly principled for Republicans who objected to the law when it was used against Ted Olson to use it to the hilt against Clinton. I'm glad taxpayers paid for Brett Kavanaugh to write the Starr Report, although I think private industry generally does a better job generating soft porn.

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?

If you think I'm going to say anything but "no," you haven't been paying attention.

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.

The phrase "would be" implies something about probability, and no one thinks that what Ken Starr et al. did in pursuing Clinton is what any other target of an investigation would have to face.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

I think White House records would confirm it and I would be willing to put up my $1000 to your $100 that I could find a confirmatory cite in some record related to this case.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

Um, Penske.

But in a few months everything Clinton will be in the here and now.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

Yes - if it was during a trial or in a deposition under oath, and it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that MoveOn did not make that statement - then yes - he should be convicted of perjury.

You finally sucked me into this debate. I was avoiding it because people whining about what someone in the other party said is just not worth discussing. When people are preaching to the choir, and trying to whip the choir up or trying to raise money, they have to get hard core. Both Dean and Rove did what they did to raise money, or for some other policial motive. You can argue whether such comments were strategically smart. You can argue whether or not the money raised or other political benefit outweighted the costs, but arguing whether or not the comments were "right" or "wrong" is a waste of time. As a fundraiser I know that it is hard to get people to donate money, let alone show up to functions, or go precinct walking. Tepid policy speaches just don't cut it. The only issue is whether what Dean and Rove said hurt or helped their respective partys.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
stp, motherfucker!

You are so fast I didn't even have time to edit.

I'm sorry (Hillary and Rangel should take note of how to make a gracious apology).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clinton said "there is no relationship" and seized on the present tense to claim he didn't also lie to the public.

Could that be why he wasn't indicted for perjury? Was he indicted?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Could that be why he wasn't indicted for perjury? Was he indicted?

I don't think you can indict a sitting President. I think you can only impeach him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think you can indict a sitting President. I think you can only impeach him.

Well, making a public statement to your staff isn't under oath. Same reason Bush hasn't been indicted for "lying" about WMD.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, making a public statement to your staff isn't under oath. Same reason Bush hasn't been indicted for "lying" about WMD.

Sorry - I didn't quite understand what you are saying here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think you can indict a sitting President.

Why not?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why not?

I don't know but I am pretty sure I am right. As long as Clinton was President he could not be indicted for any crimes. He could either be censured or impeached. Once he was kicked out of office he could be indicted. The same was true with Nixon. That is why they started impeachment hearings. Otherise they would have let the special prosecutor bring charges.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. You ask witnesses where they live so you can subpoena them at trial. My point is that in much of law practice, you can find ways to strike a compromise so that each side gets what they need. I think I offered to accept the subpoena for the witness. In Clinton's case, they were trying to embarrass him and harm his presidency. Which is why Spanky thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong. (Although I tend to disagree. I think the judge should have kept the plaintiff on a much shorter leash.)

Okay, just I am clear, how does any of that justify perjury?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The phrase "would be" implies something about probability, and no one thinks that what Ken Starr et al. did in pursuing Clinton is what any other target of an investigation would have to face.

Martha Stewart?

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 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?).

Or following the whole debacle Clinton, in a nod to the injustice visited upon him, should lobby for a revision to certain statutes to allow perjury if the defendant feels "harassed".

[Iron Steve]

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

But in a few months everything Clinton will be in the here and now.

[sharpening the knives] exactly [/sharpening the knives]

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
As long as Clinton was President he could not be indicted for any crimes.

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.