Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Iceberg wrote: All it proves is that Clinton has bad taste.
"Kennedy had taste, Marilyn Monroe. Clinton showed his dick to a government clerk. There's a drop-off here." - George Carlin
IIRC, he was being deposed in a sexual harrassment suit filed against him by Paula Jones and he lied under oath.Ma Deuce wrote:Neither do I, but his shenanigans were well known before he was even President (i.e. Gennifer Flowers). This casts further suspicion on Starr's motives for prosecuting him in the first place...Natorgator wrote:How the hell did he end up on trial in the first place?! I can't even remember.
No, he said that on TV, not under oath. And even if he had, that still wouldn't be lying under oath, because "sexual relations" and oral sex are defined differently in the law. Sexual relations in legal terms is intercourse. Therefore, he could say he didn't have "sexual relations" under oath and be telling the correct legal truth according to the law's own definitions.Ma Deuce wrote:Umm, I'm not taking sides here, but how is lying under oath not perjury?Patrick Degan wrote: Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]"
Wasn't he under oath when he said that?
Sigh:Perinquus wrote:BullSHIT he didn't commit perjury. Bill Clinton lied while under oath! That's perjury. Period. Full stop. End of story. The law is clear; lying under oath constitutes perjury, and is a felony. And Bill Clinton did, indeed, lie through his pearly white teeth while under oath. The big objection Clinton apologists have is that it was over a matter that they consider to be of relatively little significance. Well so what? The law makes no provisions as regards to either the nature of the lie, or to motive either. A lie, is a lie, is a lie. There is no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree perjury, it's just perjury. So any kind of "it's about sex and that's not really important" argument is out the window. If he committed perjury, it's a felony, and impeachable.Patrick Degan wrote:Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise. The answers he gave at the deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit and later the Grand Jury testimony both were the correct legal truth in each instance. Starr took that and attempted to construct a perjury trap out of answers given to differently-phrased questions in the two testimonies.
The entire crux of the matter is the apparent discontinuity between Clinton's testimony in the deposition he gave in the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit (a civil matter which was dismissed for lack of merit to Jones' claims) and the Grand Jury testimony. In the first testimony, Jones' lawyers phrased their question in such manner that it left a hole big enough for a truck to drive through. Clinton's answer was the strict legal truth. In the Grand Jury testimony, he again observed the strict, legal truth. Ken Starr however attempted to construct a perjury trap out of the fact that he didn't answer a question he wasn't asked when giving the deposition testimony on a matter which had no relevance to the issue under examiniation in the first place. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you, but that doesn't qualify as perjury no matter how much you wish to believe it does.Former U.S. Atty Thomas Sullivan wrote: SULLIVAN: The topic of my testimony is prosecutorial standards under which cases involving alleged perjury and obstruction of justice are evaluated by responsible federal prosecutors.
In the federal criminal justice system, indictments for obstruction of justice and perjury are relatively rare. There are several reasons.
One is that charges of obstruction and perjury are not substantive crimes, but rather have to do with circumstances peripheral to underlying criminal conduct. The facts giving rise to the obstruction or perjury arise during the course of an investigation involving other matters and, when prosecuted, are usually tagged on as charges additional to the underlying criminal conduct.
Second, charges of obstruction and perjury are difficult to prove because the legislature and the courts have erected certain safeguards for these -- for those accused of these ripple-effect crimes. And these safeguards act as hurdles for prosecutors.
The law of perjury can be particularly arcane, including the requirements that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his testimony to be false at the time he or she testified, that the alleged false testimony was material, and that any ambiguity or uncertainty about what the question or answer meant must be construed in favor of the defendant.
Both perjury and obstruction of justice are what are known as specific intent crimes, putting a heavy burden on the prosecutor to establish the defendant's state of mind. Furthermore, because perjury and obstruction charges often arise from private dealings with few observers, the courts have required either two witnesses to testify directly to the facts establishing the crime or, if only one witness testifies to the facts constituting the alleged perjury, that there be substantial corroborating proof to establish guilt.
Responsible prosecutors do not bring these charges lightly.
There is another cautionary note, and this, I think, is very significant here. Federal prosecutors do not use the criminal process in connection with civil litigation involving private parties. The reasons are obvious. If the federal prosecutors got involved in charges and countercharges of perjury and obstruction of justice in discovery or trial of civil cases, there would be little time left for the kinds of important matters that are the major targets of the Department of Justice criminal guidelines. Further, there are well established remedies available to civil litigants who believe perjury or obstruction has occurred.
Therefore, it is rare that the federal criminal process is used with respect to allegations of perjury or obstruction in civil matters.
The ultimate issue for a prosecutor deciding whether or not to seek an indictment is whether he or she is convinced that the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction -- that is, whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
This is far more than a probable cause standard, which is the test by which grand jury indictments are judged. Responsible prosecutors do not submit cases to a grand jury for indictment based upon probable cause. They do not run cases up the flag pole to see how the jury will react. They do not use indictments for deterrence or as a punishment.
Responsible prosecutors attempt to determine whether the proof is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer is yes, and there are no reasons to exercise discretion in favor of lenity (ph), the case is submitted to the grand jury for indictment which, where I come from, and everywhere else I know about, is routine and automatic. If the answer is no, that is, even if the evidence establishes probable cause but in the prosecutor's judgment will not result in a conviction, the responsible prosecutor will decline the case.
SULLIVAN: Some years ago, during the Bush administration, I was asked by an independent counsel to ask as a special assistant to bring an indictment against and try a former member of President Reagan's Cabinet.
Having looked at the evidence, I declined to do so because I concluded that, when all the evidence was considered, the case for conviction was doubtful, and that there were innocent and reasonable explanations for the allegedly wrongful conduct.
Having reviewed the evidence here, I have reached the same conclusion.
It is my opinion that the case set out in the Starr report would not be prosecuted as a criminal case by a responsible federal prosecutor.
Before addressing the specific facts of the several of the charges, let me say that, in conversations with many current and former federal prosecutors in whose judgment I have great faith, virtually all concur that, if the president were not involved, if an ordinary citizen were the subject of the inquiry, no serious consideration would be given to a criminal prosecution arising from alleged misconduct in discovery in the Jones civil case having to do with an alleged coverup of a private sexual affair with another woman or the follow-on testimony before the grand jury.
This case would simply not be given serious consideration for prosecution. It wouldn't get in the door. It would be declined out of hand.
A threshold question is whether -- if the president is not above the law, as he should not be, is he to be treated as below the law? Is he to be singled out for prosecution because of his office in a case in which, were he a private citizen, no prosecution would result?
I believe the president should be treated in the criminal justice system in the same way as any other United States citizen. If that were the case here, it is my view that the alleged obstruction of justice and perjury would not be prosecuted by a responsible United States Attorney.
Having said that, I'd like to address several of the specific charges in the Starr report.
The first has to do with perjury in the president's deposition and before the grand jury about whether or not he had a sexual affair, relationship or relations with Ms. Lewinsky.
The president denied that he did based on his understanding of the definition of the term, quote, "sexual relations," quote, adopted by the court in the Jones case. That definition, which you have before you in the papers, is difficult to parse and one can argue either side. But it is clear to me that the president's interpretation is a reasonable one, especially because...
HYDE: Mr. Sullivan, I hate to interrupt, but we -- your time has expired. Now, I -- do you think, in another three minutes, you could wind up or...
SULLIVAN: Yes.
HYDE: Could you? Very well.
SULLIVAN: I think I can.
HYDE: We'll continue it for three minutes.
SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hyde.
It's clear to me that the president's interpretation is a reasonable one, especially because the words would seem to describe directly oral sex were -- the words which seem to describe directly oral sex were stricken from the definition by the judge.
In a perjury prosecution, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew when he gave the testimony he was telling a falsehood. The line must be knowing and deliberate. It is not perjury for a witness to evade, obfuscate or answer non- responsively.
The evidence simply does not support the conclusion that the president knowingly committed perjury and the case is so doubtful and weak that a responsible prosecutor would not present it to the grand jury.
Because "sexual relations" is defined in the law as the actual act of intercourse. Not foreplay, not oral contact, not any act other than actual bodily intercourse. And your Ad-Hominems have no bearing on the actual fact or lack thereof of what was said.He didn’t just “evade”. He LIED! Bill Clinton testified that he never touched Lewinsky, he only received oral sex. However, Lewinsky testified that he fondled her breasts on at least seven occasions, and "manually stimulated" her twice, once to orgasm. Tell me how those events don't satisfy the definition of sexual relations as defined by the court. You can't. Now, of course you can argue that Lewinsky isn't credible, she's just saying what Starr wants to avoid prosecution. Well, in the first place, Lewinsky's immunity was "contractual immunity". That means it's only valid if she tells the truth, and it bears out as truth. So lying would have been no protection for her. And in the second place, she was able to give dates, times, and name people that Clinton was talking to while she was performing her acts, and these times and people are independently confirmed by white house phone logs and visitation logs, giving her testimony almost airtight credibility. That doesn't even go into the fact that her opponent in the testimony is a man that's been proven to be a facile liar.
Sigh:Clinton was asked a question; he was required to answer it honestly, or if the answer was such as to incriminate him, he should have taken the Fifth - that's why it's there. He didn't do that. He lied. Perjury. Quod erat demostrandum.
He answered according to the bounds of the questions he was given and gave the precise, legal truth. It was Paula Jones' lawyers who defined their question in such a way that it left a hole big enough for a truck to drive through. Furthermore, the transcript shows he is not contradicting Lewinsky's affidavit nor did he ask her to lie. Furthermore, no defendant in any proceeding is required to volunteer answers to questions not asked nor render full, active cooperation in his own prosecution.Clinton Grand Jury transcript wrote:Excerpt:
A Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save the -- you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read a statement, which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Ma. Lewinsky was and how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in that testimony. And I think it will perhaps make it possible for you to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view.
And, with your permission, I'd like to read that statement.
Q Absolutely. Please, Mr. President.
A When I was alone with Ma. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.
I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term "sexual relations", as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.
That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.
And:
Q And you remember that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit said that she had had no sexual relationship with you. Do you remember that?
A I do.
Q And do you remember in the deposition that Mr. Bennett asked you about that. This is at the end of the -- towards the end of the deposition. And you indicated, he asked you whether the statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in her affidavit was -
A Truthful.
Q -- true. And you indicated that it was absolutely correct.
A I did. And at the time that she made the statement, and indeed to the present day because, as far as I know, she was never deposed since the Judge ruled she would not be permitted to testify in a case the Judge ruled had no merit; that is, this case we're talking about.
I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate. And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary Americans would give it.
If you said Jane and Harry have a sexual relationship, and you're not talking about people being drawn into a lawsuit and being given definitions, and then a great effort to trick them in some way, but you are just talking about people in ordinary conversations, I'll bet the grand jurors, if they were talking about two people they know, and said they have a sexual relationship, they meant they were sleeping together; they meant they were having intercourse together.
So, I'm not at all sure that this affidavit is not true and was not true in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at the time she swore it out.
Q Did you talk with Ms. Lewinsky about what she meant to write in her affidavit?
A I didn't talk to her about her definition. I did not know what was in this affidavit before it was filled out specifically. I did not know what words were used specifically before it was filled out, or what meaning she gave to them.
But I'm just telling you that it's certainly true what she says here, that we didn't have -- there was no employment, no benefit in exchange, there was nothing having anything to do with sexual harassment. And if she defined sexual relationship in the way I think most Americans do, meaning intercourse, then she told the truth.
Q My question -
A And that depends on what was in her mind. I don't know what was in her mind. You'll have to ask her that.
Q But you indicated before that you were aware of what she intended by the term "sexual relationship".
A No, sir. I said I thought that this could be a truthful affidavit. And when I read it, since that's the way I would define it, since -- keep in mind, she was not, she was not bound by this sexual relations definition, which is highly unusual; I think anybody would admit that. When she used a different term, sexual relationship, if she meant by that what most people mean by it, then that is not an untruthful statement.
Q So, your definition of sexual relationship is intercourse only, is that correct?
A No, not necessarily intercourse only. But it would include intercourse. I believe, I believe that the common understanding of the term, if you say two people are having a sexual relationship, most people believe that includes intercourse. So, if that's what Ms. Lewinsky thought, then this is a truthful affidavit. I don't know what was in her mind. But if that's what she thought, the affidavit is true.
Q What else would sexual relationship include besides intercourse?
A Well, that -- I think -- let me answer what I said before. I think most people when they use that term include sexual relationships and whatever other sexual contact is involved in a particular relationship. But they think it includes intercourse as well. And I would have thought so. Before I got into this case and heard all I've heard, and seen all I've seen, I would have thought that that's what nearly everybody thought it meant.
And:
Q I want to go over some questions again. I don't think you are going to answer them, sir. And so I don't need a lengthy response, just a yes or a no. And I understand the basis upon which you are not answering them, but I need to ask them for the record.
If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her breasts, would she be lying?
A Let me say something about all this.
Q All I really need for you, Mr. President -
A I know.
Q -- is to say -
A But you -
Q -- I won't answer under the previous grounds, or to answer the question, you see, because we only have four hours, and your answers -
A I know.
Q -- have been extremely lengthy.
A I know that. I'll give you four hours and 30 seconds, if you'll let me say something general about this. I will answer to your satisfaction that I won't -- based on my statement, I will not answer. I would like 30 seconds at the end to make a atatement, and you can have 30 seconds more on your time, if you'll let me say this to the grand jury and to you. And I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've had a lot of time to think about this.
But, go ahead and ask your questions.
Q The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her breasts, would she be lying?
A That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement about that.
Q If she said -
A My, my statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by that.
Q If she says that you kissed her breasts, would she be lying7
A I'm going to revert to my former statement.
Q Okay. If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her genitalia, would she be lying? And that calls for a yes, no, or reverting to your former statement.
A I will revert to my statement on that.
Q If Monica Lewinsky says that you used a cigar as a sexual aid with her in the Oval Office area, would she be lying? Yes, no, or won't answer?
A I will revert to my former statement.
Q If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
A Well, that is, at least in general terms, I think, is covered by my statement. I addressed that in my statement, and that, I don't believe, is -
Q Let me define phone sex for purposes of my question. Phone sex occurs when a party to a phone conversation masturbates while the other party is talking in a sexually explicit manner. And the question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
A I think that is covered by my statement.
And:
A But in this deposition, Mr. Biteman, I was doing my best to be truthful. I was not trying to be particularly helpful to them, and I didn't think I had an obligation to be particularly helpful to them to further a -- when I knew that there was no evidence here of sexual harassment, and I knew what they wanted to do was to leak this, even though it was unlawful to do so. That's -
Q Did you believe, Mr. President -
A -- what I knew.
Q -- that you had an obligation to make sure that the presiding federal judge was on board and had the correct facts? Did you believe that was your obligation?
A Sir, I was trying to answer my testimony. I was thinking about my testimony. I don't believe I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That moment, that whole argument just passed me by. I was a witnesa. I was trying to focua on what I said and how I said it.
And, believe me, I knew what the purpose of the deposition was. And, sure enough, by the way, it did all leak, just like I knew it would.
Q Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicate in your statement that you were alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky?
A Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know for sure. But if you would like me to give an educated guess, I will do that, but I do not know for sure. And I will tell you what I think, based on what I remember. But I can't be held to a specific time, because I don't have records of all of it.
Q How many times do you think?
A Well, there are two different periods here. There 'a the period when she worked in the White House until April of '96. And then there's the period when she came back to visit me from February '97 until late December `97.
Based on our records -- let' s start with the records, where we have the best records and the closest in time. Based on our records, between February and December, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times. Although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times, at least it could have happened.
There were -- we think there were nine or 10 times when she was in, in the White House when I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen her. I do not believe I saw her that many times, but I could have.
Now, we have no records for the time when she was an employee at the White House, because we have no records of that for any of the employees at the White House, unless there was some formally scheduled meeting that was on the, on the calendar for the day.
I remember -- I'll tell you what I remember. I remember meeting her, or having my first real conversation with her during the government shutdown in November of '95, when she -- as I explained in my deposition, during the government shutdown, the -- most federal employees were actually prohibited from coming to work, even in the White House. Most people in the White House couldn't come to work. The Chief of Staff could come to work. My National Security Advisor could come to work. I could.
Therefore, interns were assigned to all offices And I believe it was her last week as an intern. Anyway, she worked in the Chief of Staff's Office. One night she brought me some pizza. We had some remarks.
Now, the next time I remember seeing her alone was on a couple of occasions when she was working in the Legislative Affairs Office as a full-time employee. I remember specifically, I have a specific recollection of two times. I don't remember when they were, but I remember twice when, on Sunday afternoon, she brought papers down to me, stayed, and we were alone.
And I am frankly quite sure -- although I have no specific memory, I am quite sure there were a couple of more times, probably two times more, three times more. That's what I would say. That's what I can remember. But I do not remember when they were, or at what time of day they were, or what the facts were. But I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996, when she worked there.
Q So, if I could summarize your testimony, approximately five times you saw her before she left the White House, and approximately nine times after she left the employment of the White House?
A I know there were several times in ,97. I've told you that I've looked at my calendar and I tell you what I think the outer limits are. I would think that would sound about right. There could be, in that first four-month period, there, maybe there' a one or two more, maybe there there's one less. I just don't know. I don't remember. I didn't keep records.
And:
I can tell you this: I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie. The first time that she raised with me the possibility that she might be a witness or I told her -- you suggested the possibility in this December 17th timeframe -- I told her she had to get a lawyer. And I never asked her to lie.
Q Did you ever say anything like that, you can always say that you were coming to see Betty or bringing me letters? Was that part of any kind of a, anything you said to her or a cover story, before you had any idea she was going to be part of Paula Jones?
A I might well have said that.
Q Okay.
A Because I certainly didn't want this to come out, if I could help it. And I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong. And, you know, of course, I didn't want it to come out. But -
Q But you are saying that you didn't say anything - I want to make sure I understand. Did you say anything like that once you knew or thought she might be a witness in the Jones case? Did you repeat that statement, or something like it to her?
A Well, again, I don't recall, and I don't recall whether I might have done something like that, for example, if somebody says, what if the reporters ask me this, that or l the other thing. I can tell you this: In the context of whether she could be a witness, I have a recollection that she asked me, well, what do I do if I get called as a witness, and I said, you have to get a lawyer. And that's all I said. And I never asked her to lie.
Q Did you tell her to tell the truth?
A Well, I think the implication was she would tell the truth. I've already told you that I felt strongly that she could issue, that she could execute an affidavit that would be factually truthful, that might get her out of having to testify. Now, it obviously wouldn't if the Jones people knew this, because they knew that if they could get this and leak it, it would serve their larger purposes, even if the judge ruled that she couldn't be a witness in the case. The judge later ruled she wouldn't be a witness in the case. The judge later ruled the case had no merit.
So, I knew that. And did I hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not.
Q If Monica Lewinsky has stated that her affidavit that she didn't have a sexual relationship with you is, in fact, a lie, I take it you disagree with that?
A No. I told you before what I thought the issue was there. I think the issue is how do you define sexual relationship. And there was no definition imposed on her at the time she executed the affidavit. Therefore, she was free to give it any reasonable meaning.
Because its all his fault, obviously!Natorgator wrote:Why does the Right have such a hard-on for blaming Clinton?
Patrick Degan wrote: Sigh:
LinkFormer U.S. Atty Thomas Sullivan wrote: SULLIVAN: The topic of my testimony is prosecutorial standards under which cases involving alleged perjury and obstruction of justice are evaluated by responsible federal prosecutors...
Legal opinion is divided as to whether President Clinton's denials--though perhaps ungallant--were legal perjury, though he certainly violated the requirement to be clear about what he was saying. However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution on charges of perjury would almost certainly fail.
Patrick Degan wrote:Because "sexual relations" is defined in the law as the actual act of intercourse. Not foreplay, not oral contact, not any act other than actual bodily intercourse. And your Ad-Hominems have no bearing on the actual fact or lack thereof of what was said.
I thought he had Clarke develop a massive plan for fighting these guys, didn't implement it because he only had a month or two in office, and then passed it off to Bush, who let it rot for months?There is a real sense that people were telling him what would happen if he didn't stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and I'm honestly really angry about his unwillingness to act in a decisive manner against them
His "massive plan for fighting these guys" consisted of running away from Somalia, launching a few cautious and totally ineffective cruise missile strikes against the wrong targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (which had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, BTW) after the attack on the USS Cole, and doing nothing to visibly deter them from actions after their attacks on the African embassies. That's not a "massive" response by any stretch of the imagination. Even if he was trying to pass on a plan for fighting Al Qaeda, he certainly didn't do it very visibly when he had the chance (ie. when he was in office), and played into the hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, despite the fact that a LOT of people, including myself, were continuing to warn him and Congress about the potential damage that terrorists could do to the United States and others.HemlockGrey wrote:I thought he had Clarke develop a massive plan for fighting these guys, didn't implement it because he only had a month or two in office, and then passed it off to Bush, who let it rot for months?There is a real sense that people were telling him what would happen if he didn't stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and I'm honestly really angry about his unwillingness to act in a decisive manner against them
Can you provide the details of this plan?HemlockGrey wrote:I thought he had Clarke develop a massive plan for fighting these guys, didn't implement it because he only had a month or two in office, and then passed it off to Bush, who let it rot for months?There is a real sense that people were telling him what would happen if he didn't stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and I'm honestly really angry about his unwillingness to act in a decisive manner against them
Perinquus wrote:Patrick Degan wrote: Sigh:
LinkFormer U.S. Atty Thomas Sullivan wrote: SULLIVAN: The topic of my testimony is prosecutorial standards under which cases involving alleged perjury and obstruction of justice are evaluated by responsible federal prosecutors...
This is the opinion of one former U.S. attorney. No doubt you could find plenty who would give you a different answer. In fact, I know you could:
They don't as far as the general law is concerned, which is what Clinton operated on, and the court's definition —vague as it was— still left a difference between "sexual relations" and "sodomy" (i.e. oral sex) large enough for a truck to drive through. And it was the judge who left out oral sex as part of the court's definitions in the deposition hearing.Lewinsky ScandalLegal opinion is divided as to whether President Clinton's denials--though perhaps ungallant--were legal perjury, though he certainly violated the requirement to be clear about what he was saying. However, legal opinion has been almost unanimous that a criminal prosecution on charges of perjury would almost certainly fail.
No, no, no, Perinquus —the idea is to refute my argument, not provide additional support for it.
No, they decline to prosecute if they can't establish a clear-cut case or if the judge would toss the case as too weak to stand on its merits, and the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is laughable on its face. Too bad if that doesn't suit you. Perhaps you should be getting your legal expertise from somebody more reliable than Oliver Wendell Dimwit.And don't read too much into the fact that even the lawyers who do think Clinton perjured himself believe charges would fail. Prosecutors decline to prosecute cases all the time where they think a jury would not convict for whatever reason - including sympathy for the defendant - it doesn't mean they consider the would be defendant somehow less guilty.
Pot. Kettle. Black.Sorry, but Clinton still committed perjury. You really ought to check your facts before making such a statement.Patrick Degan wrote:Because "sexual relations" is defined in the law as the actual act of intercourse. Not foreplay, not oral contact, not any act other than actual bodily intercourse. And your Ad-Hominems have no bearing on the actual fact or lack thereof of what was said.
Sorry, but he didn't, and your saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he did doesn't make it any more valid than any of the shrill cant of the rabid Clinton-hate mob who've been screaming the same thing for six years. And the issue is what was in Clinton's mind as the basis of his answer which is where specific intent is defined. Unless you can point to clear evidence that proves beyond doubt he knowingly deceived the court, or can demonstrate your mindreading skills at a distance to tell us with any authority what Clinton was actually thinking, you have no argument.There was not some standard common definition of sex used in this case. The court spelled out in specific detail what it meant by "sexual relations":
"Definition of Sexual Relations: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
court definition
Furthermore, this definition was provided to Clinton when he was asked to submit his deposition. And as I said, Lewinsky testified that he fondled her breasts on at least seven occasions, and "manually stimulated" her twice, once to orgasm. Tell me how those events don't satisfy the definition of sexual relations as defined by the court. You can't; it clearly does, and Bill Clinton lied about it.
Aside from Monica. This country actually did well and was respected around the globe. And look how W has fucked it all up.Vympel wrote:The Dems didn't blame Bush Sr. for shit, because nothing went catastrophically wrong during Clinton's tenure. Because he was the man.
(takes pleasure in infuriating right wingers)
I disagree completely. Even then there was a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe, and the US has actually become more respected in the parts of the Middle East that I've been to, where during the Clinton administration it was seen as piddlingly weak and uninvolved.JME2 wrote:Aside from Monica. This country actually did well and was respected around the globe. And look how W has fucked it all up.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but there has certainly been a sharp upswing in anti-American sentiment here in Canada since King George seized the throne. It's so bad that talk-radio hosts on the air here in Toronto were debating the question of why Paul Martin allowed himself to be seen shaking hands and smiling with George W.Master of Ossus wrote:I disagree completely. Even then there was a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe, and the US has actually become more respected in the parts of the Middle East that I've been to, where during the Clinton administration it was seen as piddlingly weak and uninvolved.JME2 wrote:Aside from Monica. This country actually did well and was respected around the globe. And look how W has fucked it all up.
No, I mean "respect." Prior to the war on terrorism, the US was seen as cowardly. Several highly visible incidents during which Americans were seen as running away had made the US seem weak and ineffectual. The US has, among people I've heard, come away from the war in Iraq as being much more resilient than the Arabs expected. Additionally, with the VERY recent switch in US policy that allowed the recent Israeli resolution pass through the UN, the US is seen as capable of change. Honestly, that has Arabs turning their heads. I don't think they were expecting it, and many of them think it's a step in the right direction.Darth Wong wrote:As for the Middle East, why do you believe they respect Americans more now? Or do you mean "fear" rather than "respect"?
That's funny. The general sentiment among the Canadian, Aussie, and European crowd here would seem to indicate the opposite.Master of Ossus wrote:I disagree completely. Even then there was a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe, and the US has actually become more respected in the parts of the Middle East that I've been to, where during the Clinton administration it was seen as piddlingly weak and uninvolved.
I disagree with that also, a lot of the Anit-Americanism in Europe preceeded Clinton (try most of it centred on Kissinger for crying out loud), but no matter which way we slice it, nothing will change this fact;Master of Ossus wrote:I disagree completely. Even then there was a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe, and the US has actually become more respected in the parts of the Middle East that I've been to, where during the Clinton administration it was seen as piddlingly weak and uninvolved.JME2 wrote:Aside from Monica. This country actually did well and was respected around the globe. And look how W has fucked it all up.
), and at the UN the US knowing it has nowhere near the support it needed to pass through a resolution for the invasion of Iraq (the French veto was redundant).
That was the definitely the impression immediately after Baghdad fell. However, I don't get the feeling that this impression is still in place, and long-term strategy should not be made solely on the basis of the brief end-zone dance.Master of Ossus wrote:No, I mean "respect." Prior to the war on terrorism, the US was seen as cowardly. Several highly visible incidents during which Americans were seen as running away had made the US seem weak and ineffectual. The US has, among people I've heard, come away from the war in Iraq as being much more resilient than the Arabs expected.Darth Wong wrote:As for the Middle East, why do you believe they respect Americans more now? Or do you mean "fear" rather than "respect"?
I can see that having a big effect, but tantalizing hints of a capacity for change will only have a brief effect on Arab opinion unless they ultimately prove to be something more than a tease.Additionally, with the VERY recent switch in US policy that allowed the recent Israeli resolution pass through the UN, the US is seen as capable of change. Honestly, that has Arabs turning their heads. I don't think they were expecting it, and many of them think it's a step in the right direction.
They didn't bring it to the table did they? If they (US & UK) had the votes, they would bring it to the table, make France veto it, and then decry the French for 'violating the worlds opinion'. They didn't, why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THE VOTES.Master of Ossus wrote:Prove that the French veto was redundant.
I agree that the end-zone dance shouldn't be the basis for long-term strategy, but I don't see that the sense has changed that much. People might be angry, still, about how the US has handled things, but they also don't think that the Americans will run off after they kill the first one and beat up another one.Darth Wong wrote:That was the definitely the impression immediately after Baghdad fell. However, I don't get the feeling that this impression is still in place, and long-term strategy should not be made solely on the basis of the brief end-zone dance.
True, but realistically it's a lot more than they've had for the last ten years. It's potentially a very important move in the Middle East.I can see that having a big effect, but tantalizing hints of a capacity for change will only have a brief effect on Arab opinion unless they ultimately prove to be something more than a tease.
I love how you skip the obvious explanation: if they bring it to the table, and France vetoes it, then suddenly the US invasion is not only not sanctioned, but EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL by International Law.Crown wrote:They didn't bring it to the table did they? If they (US & UK) had the votes, they would bring it to the table, make France veto it, and then decry the French for 'violating the worlds opinion'. They didn't, why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THE VOTES.
As opposed to resolution 1441 and its 'serious consequences'? And why would it be EXPLICITY ILLEGAL all of a sudden, if the proposed resolution was struck down?Master of Ossus wrote:I love how you skip the obvious explanation: if they bring it to the table, and France vetoes it, then suddenly the US invasion is not only not sanctioned, but EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL by International Law.Crown wrote:They didn't bring it to the table did they? If they (US & UK) had the votes, they would bring it to the table, make France veto it, and then decry the French for 'violating the worlds opinion'. They didn't, why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THE VOTES.
A dig against Oliver Wendell Holmes? And you are better versed in the law than one of the most revered judges ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court how exactly? You will understand, I trust, if I give such a snide and childish dismissal of an acknowledged first rank legal expert by a layman who hasn't a tiny fraction of said expert's knowledge of the law the scant regard it deserves.Patrick Degan wrote:No, no, no, Perinquus —the idea is to refute my argument, not provide additional support for it.
No, they decline to prosecute if they can't establish a clear-cut case or if the judge would toss the case as too weak to stand on its merits, and the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is laughable on its face. Too bad if that doesn't suit you. Perhaps you should be getting your legal expertise from somebody more reliable than Oliver Wendell Dimwit.And don't read too much into the fact that even the lawyers who do think Clinton perjured himself believe charges would fail. Prosecutors decline to prosecute cases all the time where they think a jury would not convict for whatever reason - including sympathy for the defendant - it doesn't mean they consider the would be defendant somehow less guilty.
Sorry, but he did, and your saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he didn't doesn't make it any more valid than any of the shrill cant of the rabid Clinton-apologist mob who've been screaming the same thing for six years.Patrick Degan wrote:Pot. Kettle. Black.Sorry, but Clinton still committed perjury. You really ought to check your facts before making such a statement.Patrick Degan wrote:Because "sexual relations" is defined in the law as the actual act of intercourse. Not foreplay, not oral contact, not any act other than actual bodily intercourse. And your Ad-Hominems have no bearing on the actual fact or lack thereof of what was said.
Sorry, but he didn't, and your saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he did doesn't make it any more valid than any of the shrill cant of the rabid Clinton-hate mob who've been screaming the same thing for six years. And the issue is what was in Clinton's mind as the basis of his answer which is where specific intent is defined. Unless you can point to clear evidence that proves beyond doubt he knowingly deceived the court, or can demonstrate your mindreading skills at a distance to tell us with any authority what Clinton was actually thinking, you have no argument.There was not some standard common definition of sex used in this case. The court spelled out in specific detail what it meant by "sexual relations":
"Definition of Sexual Relations: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
No, it's a dig against your manifest stupidity and your fanatacism.Perinquus wrote:A dig against Oliver Wendell Holmes? And you are better versed in the law than one of the most revered judges ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court how exactly? You will understand, I trust, if I give such a snide and childish dismissal of an acknowledged first rank legal expert by a layman who hasn't a tiny fraction of said expert's knowledge of the law the scant regard it deserves.Patrick Degan wrote:No, they decline to prosecute if they can't establish a clear-cut case or if the judge would toss the case as too weak to stand on its merits, and the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is laughable on its face. Too bad if that doesn't suit you. Perhaps you should be getting your legal expertise from somebody more reliable than Oliver Wendell Dimwit.
That isn't sympathy on the part of the court, that's legal calculus.And the notion that they didn't pursue a prosecution against Clinton out of sympathy for him is not laughable on its face. I have seen often enough that prosecutors will fail to pursue a case when the defendant is technically in violation of the law, but because they believe the jury will be sympathetic to him, and therefore likely to acquit, they do not believe it is worth pursuing.
And you again demonstrate that the issue here is not as clear-cut as you made it out to be in your earlier hyperventilation.How else do you explain lawyers who really do believe Clinton committed perjury, also believing that the prosecution will likely fail?
And you'd advance that argument before or after the judge would toss you out of court for advancing a prosecution on a case with such shaky support? If you're really the expert you claim yourself to be, then you of all people should know how infirm the position you're arguing here is.It is likeliest because they believe the jury will consider that although he did lie, it was over a private matter irrelevant to his ability to function as president, and what's the big deal anyway, it's not like he lied about some notable crime like the Watergate break in for example. So while he is, strictly speaking, absolutely in violation of the law, the jury will likely acquit because they will believe the violation to have occured over a small matter, and thus the prosecutor would choose not to gamble on it in court. Also, though Lewinsky is definitely a more credible witness than Clinton in this case, it's still a "her word against his" case, without a third party to back her up, or without some piece of hard evidence. So a jury will likely give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, especially since they would likely consider the whole issue to be over a matter small enough not to be worth a felony conviction, regardless of the technicalities of the case.
In your opinion.Lawyers do think like this, I see it all the time. It doesn't change the fact that Clinton lied while under oath, and only a naive trusting fool would imagine otherwise in the circumstances.
Not according to any reasonable standard of law and not according to any standard a judge would accept as support for a valid case. And I don't have to be a member of the "Clinton-apologist mob" to recognise how the persecution of him trancended the bounds of partisanship and veered toward outright lunacy.Sorry, but he did, and your saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he didn't doesn't make it any more valid than any of the shrill cant of the rabid Clinton-apologist mob who've been screaming the same thing for six years.Patrick Degan wrote:Pot. Kettle. Black.Sorry, but Clinton still committed perjury. You really ought to check your facts before making such a statement.
Sorry, but he didn't, and your saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he did doesn't make it any more valid than any of the shrill cant of the rabid Clinton-hate mob who've been screaming the same thing for six years. And the issue is what was in Clinton's mind as the basis of his answer which is where specific intent is defined. Unless you can point to clear evidence that proves beyond doubt he knowingly deceived the court, or can demonstrate your mindreading skills at a distance to tell us with any authority what Clinton was actually thinking, you have no argument.There was not some standard common definition of sex used in this case. The court spelled out in specific detail what it meant by "sexual relations":
"Definition of Sexual Relations: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Clinton's lie to the American people on TV is immaterial to the issue of his testimony in the court, so you can take that Ad-Hominem and cram it up your ass. Furthermore, Clinton never tried to contradict Lewinsky's affidavit or to say she was lying, so her credibility as a witness is a non-issue here as well.As I said earlier: Lewinsky was able to give dates, times, and name people that Clinton was talking to while she was performing her acts, and these times and people are independently confirmed by white house phone logs and visitation logs, giving her testimony almost airtight credibility. And as I said earlier: Lewinsky's immunity was "contractual immunity". That means it's only valid if she tells the truth, and it bears out as truth, so if she get's caught in a lie, she gets prosecuted, so she has an excellent reason not to lie. This gives the the kind of sold credibility that prosecutors love in a witness. She is a credible witness. Period. And Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is positively known without any shadow of doubt to have lied through his teeth to the American people on national television, about the very same matter (..."Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman..."). If you think he makes a more credible witness than Lewinsky in this case, then you should give up whatever you're smoking; it's no good for you.
A defintion so vague as to be legally meaningless and which still did not include the definition of sexual relations as laid out in common law or oral sex —the latter being omitted by the trial judge herself. That fact is not altered no matter how many times you wish to toss the quotation of the court's definition at the deposition hearing at me.Now the court defined sexual relations as "contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person", and this credible witness testified that he fondled her breasts (which I would definitely say qualifies as "contact with the breasts"), and that he manually stimulated her to orgasm, which I think we can pretty safely say qualifies as "contact with the genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Monica Lewinsky.
There is no "torturous rationalisation" involved: the court and Jones' lawyers left a loophole through which Clinton was able to tell the precise, legal truth. You cannot, with any authority, declare what exactly was in Clinton's mind to demonstrate specific intent (surely you understand that term, Mr. Lawyer) or that he didn't believe his statements on the matter to be truthful as he understood them.So, we have a credible witness stating that Clinton performed certain acts that exactly match the definition of sexual relations laid down by the court. And on the other hand, we have a less than credible witness (to say the least) stating under oath that he did not do these things. Now by what tortuous rationalization do you arrive at the conclusion that this is not perjury?
