President Clinton Impeached
voterinfo
President?
I predict that the Senate will reject both articles of impeachment by
acquitting Clinton, then pass a censure resolution. Upon leaving office
in January, 2001, President Gore (another prediction) will grant a
pardon to Clinton.
How will this affect the country? What should children believe? Speak
up!
Robert Winters
I am glad that I live in that state that had the most solid
anti-impeachment vote in the country (Massachusetts). My only regret is
that there are no Republican congressmen here for whom I can work to
throw out of office.
This was never about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, perjury, or any of
the other garbage that the Republican Guard dredged up. This is about
religious fundamentalism, opposition to abortion rights, and a desire to
roll the clock back several decades. It is about having the authority to
select future Supreme Court justices. It is about the fervent wishes of
one faction of this country wanting desperately to inflict its religious
creeds on others.
This is why it is important that Clinton never resign. To capitulate to
these theocrats would be entirely contrary to at least one of the
principals on which this country was founded - separation of church and
state.
Robert Winters
Charles Demas
voterinfo <vote...@tripod.net> wrote:
>Well, here we go. What does everyone think about the impeachment of the
>President?
>I predict that the Senate will reject both articles of impeachment by
>acquitting Clinton, then pass a censure resolution. Upon leaving office
>in January, 2001, President Gore (another prediction) will grant a
>pardon to Clinton.
>How will this affect the country? What should children believe? Speak
>up!
Today I watched 5 on 5, and for perhaps the first time, I agreed
with Hubie Jones.
Hubie pointed out that the fate of Clinton lies in the hands of a
few Democrat Senators, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynahan, Sen Robert
Byrd, and a few others. It is they that have leadership roles in
the Senate as Democrats, and they that have been silent through
this point in time, and they that personally dislike Clinton, that
will actually decide his fate, If they decide that he needs to be
removed because his actions were high crimes and misdemeanors, then
they will carry other Democrat Senators with them and cause Clinton
to be removed.
These men are men of extreme principal, and the fact that they have
remained silent about this subject while others have spoken out
against impeachment and removal may indicate that they can be persuaded,
by the evidence, to remove Bill Clinton from office.
Looking at it realistically, the removal of Clinton from office
won't cause the government to fall, in fact, it would probably
allow more legislation to be passed than if Clinton were not removed.
With Gore assuming the Presidency, there would be a new honeymoon
period where there would be a sense that we should move together
to be non-partisan and do the people's business, and as such, the
initiatives advanced by Gore would be better received, even if they
were identical to those of Clinton.
Let's all not forget that with Gore as President, we wouldn't have
a "lame duck" President, but one that would have more political
power than Clinton, because Gore would not be a "lame duck." As such,
Gore would be better able to advance legislation in Congress. This
does not even consider the fact that Gore is better liked personally
by the members of Congress, and thus can get better cooperation from
them on a personal level.
And then we have the image of the President to consider. Gore is
certainly a straight arrow, some would say, a wooden straight arrow.
His personal behavior is beyond reproach, and Tipper, his wife, is
considerably less abrasive than Hillary. OK, I'm not a fan of
Hillary. I find it impossible to believe that she didn't know that
her husband was messing around behind her back. I think she and
Bill had their own understanding about it, and I think that the
pretense that she didn't know what was happening is disengenuous.
So, I blame her for letting the Monica thing develop. Certainly
she must have heard what was happening, it wasn't any big secret
that Monica was seeing Bill a lot, and surely someone on her staff
must have gotten word about it. Hillary is a bright woman, but
she's much to blame for Bill's improper relationships, and for
advising him to fight/stonewall rather than come clean.
Well, back to the Gores. I think that they would restore the image
of the President and First Lady to what I would like it to be. I
don't think that Clinton and Hillary can ever restore that image.
Regardless of what happens in the Senate, the country will survive.
I'm not sure whether the things Bill Clinton have done are high
crimes and misdemeanors. I do think that the country would get
more accomplished if he were replaced, for the reasons I outlined
above. It's not clear to me, that replacing him for what he has
done. I do believe he knowingly lied to the grand jury, and that
he tried to hide evidence and influence witnesses in the Paula
Jones case, and those that would appear before the grand jury. I
am just not sure that these are high crimes and misdemeanors.
He has not carried out his oath of office in that he has violated
the law.
The trial in the Senate is not a criminal proceding, it is a political
proceding. Clinton is not the "defendant," he is the "respondant."
As a political trial, the rules of evidence are different. Clinton
is not in jeapordy of life, limb, or property as he might be in
a criminal proceding. All that can happen is that he'll lose his job
and possibly the right to hold other public jobs of trust.
It doesn't matter much to me now whether he is removed or not. His
name and place in history is permanently marked. For me, that is
sufficient penalty. The question now for the Senate to politically
decide is whether the country is better served by removing him (and
probably getting our business done better with him gone) or by
keeping him (and saying that although he disgraced abd personally
misused the office, this didn't harm the country or the government).
An interesting political question, and because the trial is political
and not criminal, the answers will be hard.
I'm not sure how those eminent Democrat Senators that have a sense of
history will go, but as I said in the beginning, I agree with Hubie
Jones, they will be the ones that will make the real decisions in this
case.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Geoff
seems unfortunate that we have to go through this process. Of course, if the
President had known to "keep it in his pants" then we wouldn't be having
this discussion.
Gore might be seen as a stabilizing influence -- his "wooden" character
isn't that bad. And he is a former colleague of many of these senators. As
President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, he works with them on a regular basis.
Convicting the President and having him removed from office would be
embarrassing to the nation, but it would show the world that our system
works pretty well; that we don't need a coup or new parliamentary elections
to keep the government operating. It would also show young people that
illegal and immoral actions have negative consequences.
If memory serves, Clinton would be the first President to be removed from
office. Andrew Jackson was censured (which was later overturned) and Andrew
Johnson was acquitted of the charges against him in 1868.
I can see the monument now:
"William Jefferson Clinton: Impeached and removed from office for getting a
blow-job."
John Polcari
>If memory serves, Clinton would be the first President to be removed from
>office.
But not the first president "forced" from office . That distinction
will always belong to Richard M. Nixon.
And lets not forget Spiro T. Agnew. This crook was taking kickbacks
from contractors while governor of Maryland. but the SOB was so
friggin greedy, he actually received envelopes fulla cash (from state
of Maryland deals) while in the office of the VP of the US!
------
Back to Clinton, however...
I gotta admit that I was WAY more upset that he was dumb enough to get
Humjobs in the Whitehouse by way of an Intern, than the subsequent
Lying under oath.
A married man's got an ethical obligation to protect his wife and
child from public humiliation.
In my book that's a lot more forgivable than letting the "little head"
do the thinking for the "Big Head".
JP3 John Polcari jpol...@bstone.com
----------
"I hate quotations"- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ed Foster
> I agree that the government will continue without Clinton, however it just
> seems unfortunate that we have to go through this process. Of course, if the
> President had known to "keep it in his pants" then we wouldn't be having
> this discussion.
> Gore might be seen as a stabilizing influence -- his "wooden" character
> isn't that bad. And he is a former colleague of many of these senators. As
> President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, he works with them on a regular basis.
> Convicting the President and having him removed from office would be
> embarrassing to the nation, but it would show the world that our system
> works pretty well; that we don't need a coup or new parliamentary elections
> to keep the government operating. It would also show young people that
> illegal and immoral actions have negative consequences.
> If memory serves, Clinton would be the first President to be removed from
> office. Andrew Jackson was censured (which was later overturned) and Andrew
> Johnson was acquitted of the charges against him in 1868.
> I can see the monument now:
> "William Jefferson Clinton: Impeached and removed from office for getting a
> blow-job."
Um, no......for lying under oath about it.
--
erRMV...@MediaOne.net
(remove "RMV" to reply)
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: In article <367D99C2...@erols.com>, Geoff <gri...@erols.com> wrote:
: > I can see the monument now:
: > "William Jefferson Clinton: Impeached and removed from office for getting a
: > blow-job."
: Um, no......for lying under oath about it.
The fact that Livingstone resigned *proved* that the issue is sex, rather
than lying under oath.
After all, Livingstone and his defenders insisted that the difference
between Livingstone's behavior and Clinton's is that Livingstone never
lied under oath. However, Livingstone was still forced to resign by the
Republicans (c-Span this morning - many Republicans told Livingstone they
wouldn't have supported him and that it would be better for the party if
he stepped down) If all the Republicans cared about was the lying under
oath, then this shouldn't have made any difference to them.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Ron Bargoot
>
>
> I am glad that I live in that state that had the most solid
> anti-impeachment vote in the country (Massachusetts).
I also live in Massachusetts.
My only regret is
> that there are no Republican congressmen here for whom I can work to
> throw out of office.
I agree with you there, the republicans should be thrown out of office,
but then again, so should the democrats.
>
> This was never about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, perjury, or any of
> the other garbage that the Republican Guard dredged up. This is about
> religious fundamentalism, opposition to abortion rights, and a desire to
> roll the clock back several decades. It is about having the authority to
> select future Supreme Court justices. It is about the fervent wishes of
> one faction of this country wanting desperately to inflict its religious
> creeds on others.
No, it is about a president who, according to the ultra liberal ACLU,
has the worst record of Civil Rights abuses of any president since
WW2.
>
> This is why it is important that Clinton never resign.
He lied to his wife and daughter, lied to a federal grand jury, lied
to the entire population of the United States. The best thing he could
do for this country is to resign, but he has not an honorable bone in
his body.
To capitulate to
> these theocrats would be entirely contrary to at least one of the
> principals on which this country was founded - separation of church and
> state.
>
> Robert Winters
It's amazing that you focus on the republican "Church and state" issue
when this man has shredded the entire constitution. Read this press
release:
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
=======================================
For release: December 21, 1998
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214...@Compuserve.com
=======================================
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton:
Right action, wrong reasons, say Libertarians
WASHINGTON, DC -- It's a shame that Bill Clinton was impeached,
the Libertarian Party said today... for the particular reasons he was
impeached, that is.
"Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached, but Libertarians would
prefer to see him impeached and removed from office for his crimes
against the Constitution, not for his sordid sex-and-lies scandal,"
said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"If you look at Clinton's record in office, you'll see that his
real crimes are not the ones he tried to cover up, or lied about to
grand juries -- his real crimes are the ones he boasted about in press
conferences and in State of the Union speeches."
Dasbach's comments came just two days after Clinton became the
second president in American history to be impeached by the U.S. House
of Representatives, and 167 days after delegates at the Libertarian
National Convention voted to demand the president's impeachment for his
"failure to uphold and defend the United States Constitution."
Clinton's crimes against the Constitution are the real criminal
legacy of the president's time in office, said Dasbach -- not the less
damaging charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to the
Monica Lewinsky cover-up.
"Bill Clinton committed perjury when he put his hand on a Bible
and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,"
said Dasbach. "Instead of keeping his word, Clinton spent his entire
term of office ignoring, abusing, and violating the guiding document of
this nation -- launching wars without Congressional approval, and
routinely violating the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth
amendments to the Constitution.
"And Bill Clinton obstructed justice when he signed so-called
anti-terrorism legislation that sharply curtailed the right of habeas
corpus; authorized the massacre at Waco, Texas; and expanded the power
of the federal government to seize private property without
compensation under asset forfeiture laws -- to name just a few
examples," he said.
"There are no greater crimes that a president can commit --
other than perhaps treason -- that are as serious and damaging to the
nation as Bill Clinton's serial abuse of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights," said Dasbach. "And there is no more fitting punishment for
those crimes than for the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach him,
for the U.S. Senate to convict him, for freedom-loving citizens to
scorn him, and for history to despise him."
In early July, the Libertarian Party had sent letters to
then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt,
formally requesting that the "United States House begin Articles of
Impeachment" against Clinton.
The action followed the party's national convention in
Washington, DC, where delegates overwhelmingly approved by voice vote a
resolution urging Clinton's impeachment.
Then, as now, the party took pains to note that its actions
were not motivated by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's investigation of
the president, which focused on whether Clinton lied about a sexual
relationship with a White House intern.
"This impeachment request has nothing to do with the
investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr," wrote the party's
then-National Director Ron Crickenberger. "We are making this request
based solely on the violations of the Constitution that have been
perpetrated by President Clinton during the time [he has] been in
office."
The party documented a long list of constitutional violations
in the letter, noting that Clinton:
* Violated the First Amendment by supporting censorship of the
Internet and by demanding a ban on commercial advertising by cigarette
companies.
* Violated the Second Amendment by signing the Brady Bill and
by arbitrarily banning so-called "assault weapons."
* Violated the Fourth Amendment by restricting the right of
Americans to employ encryption technology to prevent government spying
on electronic communications; and by supporting legislation that will
mandate national ID cards with biometric identifiers, such as
fingerprints.
* Violated the Fifth Amendment by expanding the asset
forfeiture power of the federal government; and by signing
"anti-terrorism" legislation that sharply limited the right of habeas
corpus.
* Violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- which reserve all
power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the
states and to the people -- by attempting to put America's health care
industry under federal control; and by numerous other executive actions
and decrees.
"These are crimes of the stature and magnitude that deserve
impeachment," said Dasbach. "And those are the crimes that convinced
Libertarians that Clinton should be impeached by the U.S. House,
convicted by the U.S. Senate, and removed from office."
--
Ron Bargoot
http://www.tufts.edu/~rbargoot
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1387/
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
"You take what's good for you, and I'll take my freedom"
Steven Tyler, "One way street"
Donna Sullivan
college. I haven't changed my opinion. She'd love this current mess.
And she'd be right there with the Republicans out for blood.
Donna Sullivan
Hugo S. Cunningham
>I was appalled by Ayn Rand's philosophy when I read her books in
>college. I haven't changed my opinion. She'd love this current mess.
>And she'd be right there with the Republicans out for blood.
Rand would have disliked Bill Clinton and his Republican opponents in
equal measure. She despised the Religious Right.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
John A. Swartz
> than lying under oath.
No, it proved that the issue is one of *honor*, not sex.
I find it most interesting that the Democrats chanted "You resign!" to
Livingston during his speech on the House floor, and then after he did, they
applauded every Democrat that stood up and said that he should reconsider.
George D. Phillies
They got their wish. This is not always a good thing. George
Robert Winters
Democracy:
****************************************************
-- David Duke after Bob Livingstone's House seat --
Given voter disgust with partisan rancor in Washington and the dynamics
of a low turnout special election, observers should take note of the
announced candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to fill
never-quite-Speaker Bob Livingstone's seat in Louisiana. In his two
statewide elections in which he won some 40% of votes, Duke carried
Livingstone's district.
****************************************************
I guess extramarital affairs are less acceptable in that district than
white supremacy. God help us.
Robert Winters
Robert Foulis
:
: He lied to his wife and daughter, lied to a federal grand jury, lied
: do for this country is to resign, but he has not an honorable bone in
: his body.
: It's amazing that you focus on the republican "Church and state" issue
: when this man has shredded the entire constitution. Read this press
: release:
While all religions are based in truth, truth is the highest ideal we hve
and the foundation of ethics and our government. If one lies, what good is
their word or actions?
But the other issues you mention do bother me as well.
David Chase
> While all religions are based in truth, truth is the highest ideal we hve
> and the foundation of ethics and our government.
Justice? Fairness?
> If one lies, what good is their word or actions?
If the actions are good in themselves, I can put up with an
awful lot of lying. Suppose someone did nothing but good works
while always claiming the worst intentions and claiming credit
for all evil committed by others? It's the lying to cover bad
deeds that bugs me.
David Chase
David A Karr
>Robert Foulis wrote:
>> If one lies, what good is their word or actions?
>
>If the actions are good in themselves, I can put up with an
>awful lot of lying. Suppose someone did nothing but good works
>while always claiming the worst intentions and claiming credit
>for all evil committed by others?
And how am I to know that they're actually doing good works? I'm not
omniscient, and all the smoke and mirrors makes it awfully hard to
know what's really going on.
There's this phrase I heard somewhere, "an office of public trust."
I just can't see voting for a pathological liar for such a position,
even if I felt for some reason he or she really had a heart of gold.
--
David A. Karr "Groups of guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein."
ka...@shore.net --Decca executive Dick Rowe, 1962
Matt Crane
wrote:
>If the actions are good in themselves, I can put up with an
>awful lot of lying. Suppose someone did nothing but good works
>while always claiming the worst intentions and claiming credit
>for all evil committed by others? It's the lying to cover bad
>deeds that bugs me.
Time for a reality check. Just who are all these people lying to
cover up good deeds?
If we buy into your logic, then can we assume that you approved of the
Reagan administration lying about their support of the Contras after
the Boland Amendments were passed? Getting rid of Danny Ortega's
Communist regime certainly falls under the heading of "good works" to
most people except the most hardened Harvard Square Sandalista.
-Matt
Ron Bargoot
>
> I was appalled by Ayn Rand's philosophy when I read her books in
> college.
You are appalled by personal responsiblity and achievment?
Charles Demas
David S Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <IFZf2.1484$J4.2...@news.shore.net>,
>David A Karr <ka...@shore.net> wrote:
>>>Robert Foulis wrote:
>>>> If one lies, what good is their word or actions?
>
>>I just can't see voting for a pathological liar for such a position,
>>even if I felt for some reason he or she really had a heart of gold.
>
>anyone (Clinton or Livingstone) who engages in extramarital affairs
>has lied [to his wife]. While cheating in marriage is not a good
>thing, and indicates a character flaw, I'm not convinced that
>anybody who has ever been other than monogamous while married
>is unfit for public office.
I'm unmarried, so the cheating in marriage thing is somewhat
hypothetical for me.
I do agree that cheating on one's wife (unless one has an "open
marriage" agreement) does show a character flaw, and if one will
break that promise, then one will break other promises of lesser
consequence.
That said, it is possible to learn from one's mistakes. As children
we've all broken promises, and generally learned from the consequences.
As adults, we've also made mistakes and hopefully learned from them.
I don't think that a private extramarital affair is the public's
business unless one of the participants (including the cheated
spouse) chooses to make it public.
It is also possible that one could learn from that experience, but
repeated occurances makes one wonder what lesson has been learned.
John Reder
>
> In <3680FF...@infonet.tufts.edu>, Ron Bargoot
> <rbar...@infonet.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I was appalled by Ayn Rand's philosophy when I read her books in
> > > college.
>
> > You are appalled by personal responsiblity and achievment?
>
>
> -- AK
>
What is this "them" shit. Why do you have to "pigeon hole" someone
because they have an opinion that you don't agree with.
When you say "it's because you are on the left", it is like
saying "it's because you're a nigger lover". There is no intelligence
behind your statement, merely a demonstration that you have sort of
hatred to one extent or another that doesn't lend itself to an
intelligent rationalization of the point. It's "them", against "us".
It's an emotional outburst, so you look bad and your defense of any
position makes that position look bad.
Charles Demas
>Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
>>I do agree that cheating on one's wife (unless one has an "open
>>marriage" agreement) does show a character flaw, and if one will
>>break that promise, then one will break other promises of lesser
>>consequence.
>
>get home early" discussion. Yesterday morning I said I'd be
>home by 6pm. Yesterday afternoon I said 6:30pm. I got home
>at 6:45pm.
> I don't think she particularly expected better.
Well, why did you bother discussing it if it wasn't important
to her? Why did she bother asking? Perhaps you would have
been later if she hadn't asked. I cannot comment on what your
wife expects of you, but if you'd invited someone to dinner at
6pm, and they arrived at 6:45pm, what would your opinion of them
be, especially if there were no good reason why they were
delayed.
> It will happen again.
> Broken promise? Character flaw?
Well, I'm sure she accepts you complete with your flaws.
> When I'm hauled before a special federal grand jury, and
>they ask me if I've ever lied to my wife, and I say "no",
>will they pull this admission from Deja News, note that
>I lied about getting home early, and force me from office?
I bet that if you were asked if you ever promised to be home
at a certain time and failed to be there, that you would say
that it probably happened, and wouldn't deny it saying, "I have
no specific recollection of that."
> Do my family, friends and associates think that they can depend
>on me when something needs doing?
If they expect it to happen at a certain time, they probably
don't expect you to be punctual (and you probably don't promise
to do things by a certain time, put rather promise to try to do
them by a certain time).
How do you think Lani Guineer feels about Bill Clinton's promises
to support her? How do you think Bill Weld feels about Clinton's
commitments of support?
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
>--
>David Chesler (che...@post.harvard.edu, etc.)
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2955 (/riverbay.html or /paddleball.html)
> or http://hail.icestorm.com/chesler
>Birth announcement: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2955/kevin.html
John Reder
>
> All I said, in effect, is that there are a lot of leftists around - are you
> disagreeing with that?
>
All I said, in essence was that, that's a pretty unintelligent
argument.
All the initial poster said was that he didn't care for what he read in
Ayn Rand's book. You said that was because he was one of "THEM".
I didn't read the book, I don't know what was in it that he didn't
like. But, what I did gather, from your defense of what was in the
book, was that it obviously has an attraction for people who have an
"us vs. them" mentality. Which kind of gives me an impression of the
type of thing the poster probably didn't care for.
He read something he didn't agree with, now suddenly he's one of
"THEM". What is "THEM"? Obviously we don't want "THEM" around us!
Which is the proverbial cry of the intellectual Neanderthal.
If I was Ayn Rand, I wouldn't be too happy about the quality of
the defense that was coming to me. It is sort of like trying to come up
with a rational and intelligent argument against school busing and
seeing your support show up in Klan robes. I would want to go over my
presentation again, because I am obviously not getting the right message
across to the right people.
biete
To all the members of the groep ne.politics
I whisch you all a merry X mas and a happy new year
Teunis Biesheuvel(bi...@worldonline.nl)
Ron Bargoot heeft geschreven in bericht <3680FF...@infonet.tufts.edu>...
>Donna Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> I was appalled by Ayn Rand's philosophy when I read her books in
>> college.
>
>You are appalled by personal responsiblity and achievment?
biete
To all the members of the groep ne.politics
I whisch you all a merry X mas and a happy new year
Teunis Biesheuvel(bi...@worldonline.nl)
Ron Bargoot heeft geschreven in bericht <3680FF...@infonet.tufts.edu>...
>Donna Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> I was appalled by Ayn Rand's philosophy when I read her books in
>> college.
>
>You are appalled by personal responsiblity and achievment?
David Chase
> wrote:
>
> >If the actions are good in themselves, I can put up with an
> >awful lot of lying. Suppose someone did nothing but good works
> >while always claiming the worst intentions and claiming credit
> >for all evil committed by others? It's the lying to cover bad
> >deeds that bugs me.
Matt Crane wrote:
> Time for a reality check. Just who are all these people lying to
> cover up good deeds?
True enough, but you miss the point of my example. Recall that I
was replying to:
> > If one lies, what good is their word or actions?
Lacking a proof that liars are incapable of good deeds,
rare as that may be (and I cannot think of any offhand),
it seems to me that the deeds are more important than
the lies.
In the case of Clinton, it is not so much his good deeds
as it is the bad deeds of the people attacking him. In
particular, there's evidence illegally obtained (Linda
Tripp), grand jury perjury (Linda Tripp, again; denied
collecting material for a book, but Lucianne Goldberg has
her on tape discussing working on a book and dangling tips
to Newsweek to rev up public interest -- see this week's
New Yorker), illegal leaks by the prosecutor (pending before
judge Johnson), conflict of interest by the prosecutor
(his firm consulted on the Paula Jones case, the offer of
a job at Pepperdine funded by Richard Scaife), possible
unauthorized investigation by the prosecutor (proceeded
with his own taping before getting the ok from Janet Reno),
plus (in some states, given current judicial decisions)
bribery of witnesses (grants of immunity in exchange for
testimony), and outrageous intimidation of witnesses (a
friend tells me, I have not checked this, that he is
trying to "persuade" a woman to testify about Kathleen
Willey by looking for clerical errors in adoption papers
from seven years ago; that is, he is attempting to take
her child away to force her to testify).
The judiciary committee could also have set a better example.
If it's a matter of law, then what does the common practice
of the law say for cases like this? ("Do not prosecute.")
If it's a matter of upholding the constitution, then
which branch of government is the special prosecutor
in? ("None.") If it's for lying to the American people,
then what do the (now well-informed, we've read the book
and seen the video, that was why they were made available,
right?) American people say? ("60+% do not favor impeachment").
In an ordinary case for an ordinary citizen, I think (hope!)
all this would cause the case to be thrown out of court, for
matters substantially more serious than non-material
lying in a dismissed (and now settled) nuisance civil suit.
David Chase
Charles Demas
David Chase <ch...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>The judiciary committee could also have set a better example.
>If it's a matter of law, then what does the common practice
>of the law say for cases like this? ("Do not prosecute.")
If that is the case, then the judiciary committee might well have
done exactly the right thing in getting Clinton impeached, which is
a political process, and not a criminal process.
You argue that there is not sufficient evidence for Clinton to
suffer criminal penalties for what he has done. That may indeed
be true. That doesn't mean that he should not suffer political
penalties for his actions, and remember, impeachment, trial in the
Senate, and removal from office are all political processes.
>If it's a matter of upholding the constitution, then
>which branch of government is the special prosecutor
>in? ("None.")
The special prosecutor is part of the Executive branch, and is
appointed by the A.G. IIRC. In fact, the President can/could have
removed Ken Starr as special prosecutor at any time (with political
consequences). Nixon fired an Independant Council as you may recall.
>If it's for lying to the American people,
>then what do the (now well-informed, we've read the book
>and seen the video, that was why they were made available,
>right?) American people say? ("60+% do not favor impeachment").
Too late, he's already impeached. Their opinion about whether to
impeach or not is moot.
Whether Clinton has suffered sufficient political penalty by
having been impeached is a good question. He will probably not
be removed from office.
The one thing that is clear to me is that Clinton still doesn't get
it. He has yet to come clean with the American people. He continues
to play word games and points the finger at others, rather than
actually accepting personal responsibility.
When the Watergate breakin occured, suppose Nixon had said to the
American people, "Some people associated with my campaign crossed
the bounds of propriety. Since it's my campaign, even though I
didn't know what was planned, I am ultimately responsible for their
actions. What they did was wrong, and I apologize for it happening."
I contend, that had he done that, it would have been the end of the
matter, but that wasn't the route he chose.
Similarly, Clinton could have at many points chosen a different route,
but his (and perhaps Hillary's) ego/character wouldn't let him.
He has nobody to blame but himself. It is his actions that have
brought him to this place, and it is his political penalty to pay.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Robert Foulis
: Agreed, David, but I think Robert would have us conclude that
: anyone (Clinton or Livingstone) who engages in extramarital affairs
: has lied [to his wife]. While cheating in marriage is not a good
: thing, and indicates a character flaw, I'm not convinced that
: anybody who has ever been other than monogamous while married
: is unfit for public office.
I can deal with the fact that both men lied to their wives, which is
between themselves. I can not tolerate someone that is a compulsive lier,
like Clinton.
One who cheats on his wife and is truly sorry can be forgiven. One who
constantly lies and lies to cover up those lies and takes zero
responsibility for his actions is unfit for public office. I'd like to
believe him that we were attacking Iraq for the right reasons but how can
I when everything else he's said is a bunch of bs.
Ed Foster
> > The fact that Livingstone resigned *proved* that the issue is sex, rather
> > than lying under oath.
>
> No, it proved that the issue is one of *honor*, not sex.
>
>
> I find it most interesting that the Democrats chanted "You resign!" to
> Livingston during his speech on the House floor, and then after he did, they
> applauded every Democrat that stood up and said that he should reconsider.
Plenty of hypocrisy there. If they're claiming the republicans are
playing politics, what were they doing?
Matt Crane
wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 02:11:21 GMT, David Chase <ch...@world.std.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If the actions are good in themselves, I can put up with an
>> >awful lot of lying. Suppose someone did nothing but good works
>> >while always claiming the worst intentions and claiming credit
>> >for all evil committed by others? It's the lying to cover bad
>> >deeds that bugs me.
>
>Matt Crane wrote:
>> Time for a reality check. Just who are all these people lying to
>> cover up good deeds?
>
>True enough, but you miss the point of my example. Recall that I
>was replying to:
>
>> > If one lies, what good is their word or actions?
>
>Lacking a proof that liars are incapable of good deeds,
>rare as that may be (and I cannot think of any offhand),
>it seems to me that the deeds are more important than
>the lies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, but the situation we
find ourselves in is thus:
The President was the object of a lawsuit that alleged he had made an
unwanted, crude gesture to a low-level employee as part of an attempt
to get his rocks off. Plaintiff was seeking discovery on a
relationship the defendant had with a low-level employee. Plaintiff
acted to prevent that discovery through lying under oath and
encouraging others to use "cover stories". Where is the good deed?
>In the case of Clinton, it is not so much his good deeds
>as it is the bad deeds of the people attacking him.
Why didn't you say this in the first place?
>In
>particular, there's evidence illegally obtained (Linda
>Tripp),
You're confusing "evidence illegally obtained" with evidence obtained
via an illegal act. If a burgular in the midst of committing his
crime witnesses a murder, his account is not illegally obtained.
If Starr didn't instruct Tripp to tape her phone calls, the evidence
is not illegally obtained. Of course, I suspect that you believe
Starr had hatched this plot way back when.
>grand jury perjury (Linda Tripp, again; denied
>collecting material for a book, but Lucianne Goldberg has
>her on tape discussing working on a book and dangling tips
>to Newsweek to rev up public interest -- see this week's
>New Yorker),
Okay. What does this prove with regard to the President? It tells me
that that Linda Tripp might be a perjurer in addition to being a catty
bitch.
> illegal leaks by the prosecutor (pending before
>judge Johnson),
And curiously, the result of the probe will remain under seal at the
request of the President's lawyers if I recall correctly.
>conflict of interest by the prosecutor
>(his firm consulted on the Paula Jones case, the offer of
>a job at Pepperdine funded by Richard Scaife),
I thought his firm was consulted on preparing a brief over whether or
not a sitting President can be subject to a law suit? And we're
trotting out the Scaife bogeyman again? Oh brother...
>possible
>unauthorized investigation by the prosecutor (proceeded
>with his own taping before getting the ok from Janet Reno),
Reno could have fired him. Clinton could have instructed Reno to fire
him.
>plus (in some states, given current judicial decisions)
>bribery of witnesses (grants of immunity in exchange for
>testimony),
It doesn't matter what is currently on the law in "some states". All
of this falls under the Feds.
>and outrageous intimidation of witnesses (a
>friend tells me, I have not checked this, that he is
>trying to "persuade" a woman to testify about Kathleen
>Willey by looking for clerical errors in adoption papers
>from seven years ago; that is, he is attempting to take
>her child away to force her to testify).
Wait a second. You want to trot out things a "friend" tells you?
You're being silly now. How about I trot out stories of Clinton's
cocaine habit, Mena airport, Foster's "suicide"? These things need to
be investigated further!!! Oh wait, then I'd be branded some sort of
right-wing conspiracy wacko. Believe what you wish.
>The judiciary committee could also have set a better example.
>If it's a matter of law, then what does the common practice
>of the law say for cases like this? ("Do not prosecute.")
A former federal prosecutor has an interesting op-ed piece in today's
Wall Street Journal concerning the punishment that WJC should be
subject to and tangentially addresses whether or not this case would
be proscecuted. Suffice it to say that the Richard Ben-Veniste and
Alan Dershowitz school of thought is not unanimous among the ranks of
federal law enforcement.
>If it's a matter of upholding the constitution, then
>which branch of government is the special prosecutor
>in? ("None.")
Since the IC is appointed by the AG and can be fired by same, I would
say that it is part of the Executive. The President renewed the
statute.
> If it's for lying to the American people,
>then what do the (now well-informed, we've read the book
>and seen the video, that was why they were made available,
>right?) American people say? ("60+% do not favor impeachment").
I would argue with "well informed". I saw a poll that indicated that
only 15% of a random sample of Americans even knew who their
Congressman was. A similar figure was given for the percentage of
people who know that a President isn't removed from office if he is
impeached.
>In an ordinary case for an ordinary citizen, I think (hope!)
>all this would cause the case to be thrown out of court, for
>matters substantially more serious than non-material
>lying in a dismissed (and now settled) nuisance civil suit.
Are you arguing for more effective tort reform here?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general theme I got from your post
is: The people currently charged with investigating the President are
bad, therefore the President should just be left alone.
If the people are SO bad, retribution will be had at the polling place
in 2000. Sign up with Jim Carville's band of merry morons and seek
your revenge. All in all, on the issue of removing a President, our
Constitution is working just fine, thank you very much.
-Matt
David Chase
> >and outrageous intimidation of witnesses (a
> >friend tells me, I have not checked this, that he is
> >trying to "persuade" a woman to testify about Kathleen
> >Willey by looking for clerical errors in adoption papers
> >from seven years ago; that is, he is attempting to take
> >her child away to force her to testify).
>
> Wait a second. You want to trot out things a "friend" tells you?
I read about the initial account in some publication, don't
recall which. I didn't think much of it, till a friend of mine
mentioned that it was still going on. I probably read about
this in the NY Times, given that a quick search at their
web site (Starr, adoption, Willey) yields:
Article 1
November 1, 1998, Sunday
Peripheral Figure Feels the Heat of Starr's Investigation
Julie Hiatt Steele is only a peripheral figure in the
investigation of President Clinton. But she is still
attracting a lot of attention from Kenneth W. Starr,
the independent counsel. This week, Mr. Starr's
office called Ms. Steele's daughter and br ...
National Desk
1584 words
By JILL ABRAMSON
Article 2
November 3, 1998, Tuesday
Abroad at Home; Is This America?
''How can this be in America?'' Julie Hiatt Steele asked.
''It's not the country I thought I lived in.'' Ms.
Steele is an obscure person -- a nobody, as she says.
But she has become a target of Kenneth Starr,
and that has changed her life. She has b ...
Editorial Desk
762 words
By ANTHONY LEWIS
From the first article:
"Ms. Steele's lawyer, Nancy Luque, who has been representing Ms.
Steele on a pro bono basis since March, said Mr. Starr's
investigators had been asking questions about the adoption
arrangements for Ms. Steele's son."
> ... Suffice it to say that the Richard Ben-Veniste and
> Alan Dershowitz school of thought is not unanimous among the ranks of
> federal law enforcement.
That is, there's at least one dissenter, and the WSJ found him
(and it wasn't Bill Weld, either).
> >In an ordinary case for an ordinary citizen, I think (hope!)
> >all this would cause the case to be thrown out of court, for
> >matters substantially more serious than non-material
> >lying in a dismissed (and now settled) nuisance civil suit.
>
> Are you arguing for more effective tort reform here?
Well, yes. That the question could have been asked in the
first place I find absurd. Furthermore, the conduct of the
prosecutor is such that if it were me, I would hope for some
remedy. Imagine, for whatever reason, that a prosecutor is
coming after you, and that:
0) You're accused of perjury in a nuisance civil suit
that is later dismissed because the plaintiff could
not even show she'd been harmed.
1) a rich enemy has offered the prosecutor a job after
he's done with you.
2) the prosecutor has leaked information to the press, and
is even caught on videotape confirming rumors posed to
him by the press (effectively, a leak, and some of the
more damning evidence against Starr).
3) the prosecutor began investigating you without authorization,
including wiretaps, and made use of wiretaps made illegally
by a private citizen (thus, handily, the prosecutor did not
even need to show cause in the first place).
4) the prosecutor has made immunity deals with all his witnesses
to get their testimony. Other witnesses offered immunity
deals in the past by this prosecutor claim that he wants
them to tell "his truth", and not what they think actually
happened. (Susan McDougal and one other person related
to the Whitewater investigation, don't recall who, but I
did read about it in Salon. David Hale's also apparently
been asking his brother to lie.)
I realize this could all well be legal in America, the land of
no-knock warrants and asset seizure, but I don't think it should
be. (I note also from today's New York Times op-ed that the
literal truth of testimony is not necessarily an adequate perjury
defense; I suppose this news was supposed to make me feel better
about impeaching the president, but it made me feel worse about
how we run trials in this country instead.)
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general theme I got from your post
> is: The people currently charged with investigating the President are
> bad, therefore the President should just be left alone.
No. It is more along the lines of "given the way this investigation
has gone, if he were a private citizen, it would have been thrown out
of court already". The "should" is not because of the "bad" people,
or because of the "good" president, but because of the botched
investigation. Mistrials have been declared for much more serious
offenses (allegedly) committed by ordinary people; it seems that
something similar would be appropriate here. My gripe with
Congress is that they were not the least bit bothered by any of this,
and proceeded to release grand jury testimony and the
independent counsel's report, both (I think) as a form of punishment,
and proceeded in their "constitutional duty" of not allowing a vote
on censure. (I'm actually a bit lukewarm on censure, since it seems
like your basic slap-on-the-wrist.)
Delay's conduct has been delightfully sleazy; first he promotes
impeachment as "the ultimate censure", then he starts lobbying
the senators to convict, and offers to show them "secret information"
about the president (source, New York times, within the last week).
There's other indications that the president probably should
not be impeached; for starters, the demands that he "admit"
to the crime and all will be well. Try substituting "treason"
or "bribery" for the crime that will be forgiven if admitted,
and see how that sits with you. (For bribery, perhaps it is
"give the money back".)
David Chase
Matt Crane
wrote:
<snip of snippets describing Julie Hiatt Steele's "ordeal">
Ah yes.... Julie Hiatt Steele. The woman who confirmed Willey's
claims to both Michael Isikoff and a Richmond TV producer / friend
only to suddenly change her story. It's my understanding that Starr
began investigating her after she changed her story to see if she was
the object of any Arkansas persuasion. Which lies of Steele's are we
to believe?
>> ... Suffice it to say that the Richard Ben-Veniste and
>> Alan Dershowitz school of thought is not unanimous among the ranks of
>> federal law enforcement.
>
>That is, there's at least one dissenter, and the WSJ found him
>(and it wasn't Bill Weld, either).
Yes, I'll proudly admit it wasn't Bill Weld. But then again, seeing
as how U.S. Attorney William Weld let Billy Bulger terrorize who he
wished in return for info on the Italian mob, forgive me if I cast
aspersions on his prosecutorial judgement. And listening to folk
songs with Hillary Clinton at late night strategy sessions during
Nixon impeachment hearings doesn't say much for Big Red's
impartiality.
>> >In an ordinary case for an ordinary citizen, I think (hope!)
>> >all this would cause the case to be thrown out of court, for
>> >matters substantially more serious than non-material
>> >lying in a dismissed (and now settled) nuisance civil suit.
>>
>> Are you arguing for more effective tort reform here?
>
>Well, yes. That the question could have been asked in the
>first place I find absurd.
Why do you find it absurd? The only difference between WJC's Monica
episode and his Paula episode is that the ditzy brat from Beverly
Hills said "yes" while the Arkansas trailer-park-trash said "no". Oh,
and Monica did get quite a bit of career help from a very influential
Washington power-broker. Now that I think of it, Paula should have
had the brains to realize what she might have accomplished had she
decided to service Little Bill at the Excelsior that day. Why, she
just might have had a job that let her travel around the world - with
a Top Secret security clearance to boot!! Then again she might have
wound up like Dolly Kyle Browning, or Elizabeth Ward Gracen, or
Jennifer Flowers - intimidated in private, trashed in public by the
Prez's handy little fixers.
> Furthermore, the conduct of the
>prosecutor is such that if it were me, I would hope for some
>remedy.
Unless you become President of the United States or get entangled
trying to cover up for him/her you have little to worry about from the
OIC.
> Imagine, for whatever reason, that a prosecutor is
>coming after you, and that:
Ooooh.... I love these exercises.
>0) You're accused of perjury in a nuisance civil suit
> that is later dismissed because the plaintiff could
> not even show she'd been harmed.
Shouldn't that be "You've committed perjury..."?
>1) a rich enemy has offered the prosecutor a job after
> he's done with you.
*sigh* Go on, continue to peddle your VRWC baloney. And for what
it's worth, if I were the POTUS, I would've had one of my rich friends
like David Geffen give me some dough to shut Paula up. I wouldn't
subject myself to an embarrasing line of questioning, especially if I
had availed myself of the services of "hundreds" of women. Especially
if I knew that opposing counsel had subpoenaed people that, if they
told the truth, would provide damaging testimony.
>2) the prosecutor has leaked information to the press, and
> is even caught on videotape confirming rumors posed to
> him by the press (effectively, a leak, and some of the
> more damning evidence against Starr).
What information are you referring to? The only thing that is illegal
to leak is grand jury testimony. Do you have a specific instance
you're referring to that is covered by said grand jury rule?
>3) the prosecutor began investigating you without authorization,
> including wiretaps, and made use of wiretaps made illegally
> by a private citizen (thus, handily, the prosecutor did not
> even need to show cause in the first place).
All overseen by the AG I appointed.
>4) the prosecutor has made immunity deals with all his witnesses
> to get their testimony. Other witnesses offered immunity
> deals in the past by this prosecutor claim that he wants
> them to tell "his truth", and not what they think actually
> happened. (Susan McDougal and one other person related
> to the Whitewater investigation, don't recall who, but I
> did read about it in Salon. David Hale's also apparently
> been asking his brother to lie.)
I'm sorry if I don't swallow the claims of the likes of Susan
McDougal. From what I have heard, she refused to answer a simple,
direct question "When Bill Clinton testified that he knew nothing
about <some dirty money that passed hands in Arkansas> was he lying?"
Given that people like Sidney Blumenthal have told bald-faced lies
regarding what they were asked about in the grand jury, I have a hard
time swallowing Susie's Torquemada characterization.
>I realize this could all well be legal in America, the land of
>no-knock warrants and asset seizure, but I don't think it should
>be.
Equating the investigation of the President with Unconstitutional
practices, while a valiant attempt to pander to the libertarian in me,
is a strained attempt to draw parallels between two vastly different
situations.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the general theme I got from your post
>> is: The people currently charged with investigating the President are
>> bad, therefore the President should just be left alone.
>
>No. It is more along the lines of "given the way this investigation
>has gone, if he were a private citizen, it would have been thrown out
>of court already".
He's not a private citizen under investigation for a crime where there
might be jailtime involved. He is the POTUS under investigation for
committing perjury and obstructing justice in an attempt to prevent
discovery in a civil rights suit that might result in him losing his
elected office.
>The "should" is not because of the "bad" people,
>or because of the "good" president, but because of the botched
>investigation.
I'll agree that Starr has botched his investigations. He hasn't been
dogged enough and he cares too much about what the pundits and
pundettes think of him. But through all his missteps, he has somehow
managed to discover that, dag-nabbit, Billy perjured himself and
enlisted the help of his secretary and his semen-dumpster to withold
evidence.
> Mistrials have been declared for much more serious
>offenses (allegedly) committed by ordinary people;
Bill Clinton isn't on trial where the result can be that he loses a
portion of his rights. He was the subject of an investigation that
was approved by Janet Reno following the Independent Counsel law. The
ultimate result of conviction after impeachment is that he is no
longer accorded the privelege to hold a position of power and trust.
If Clinton should come under indictment, which I hope he will
regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial, the alleged
prosecutorial abuses you think have been committed will become issues.
Of course we both know that Clinton will be pardoned by the next
President, whether she be Donkey or Elephant. If by some miracle he
does get tried in a court of law, his DC jury will most likely be made
up of people that would walk a mile uphill for the privelege of eating
his excrement with a rusty spoon. An acquittal is assured.
> it seems that
>something similar would be appropriate here.
"Perjury by the POTUS isn't a big deal if the investigation has
alleged improprieties" Okay, I gotcha. Just who should be the one to
declare this "mistrial"?
>My gripe with
>Congress is that they were not the least bit bothered by any of this,
>and proceeded to release grand jury testimony and the
>independent counsel's report, both (I think) as a form of punishment,
Wait a minute. The Clinton apologists spent the better part of 9
months proclaiming "Wait for the evidence!!!!!!" "Innocent until
proven guilty!!!!". Now the evidence is put forth before them and
they decry the attempt to embarass the weasel. They can't have it
both ways. Congress was going to get skewered by the Geraldos and
Dershowitz's of the world no matter WHAT they did with Starr's
evidence.
>and proceeded in their "constitutional duty" of not allowing a vote
>on censure. (I'm actually a bit lukewarm on censure, since it seems
>like your basic slap-on-the-wrist.)
Why does Clinton need any sort of rebuke or punishment? According to
you, he didn't do anything wrong, correct? Drop the whole thing so he
can get back to doing the business of this country, damnit!!! Why
even take up the issue of censure?
I agree that the claims of following a "constitutional duty" are
somewhat hollow. Censure would be extraconstitutional not
unconstitutional. However, given that fact, it would also lack any
teeth that would discourage the next Bill Clinton from treating the
judicial process and the rights of fellow citizens as mere suggestions
or guidelines to be discarded if they prove inconvenient.
>Delay's conduct has been delightfully sleazy; first he promotes
>impeachment as "the ultimate censure", then he starts lobbying
>the senators to convict, and offers to show them "secret information"
>about the president (source, New York times, within the last week).
I'll agree that DeLay's tactics are low. If there's evidence for
further Articles of Impeachment that haven't been seen, bring them
before the judiciary. Such tactics are almost as low as hiring Terry
Lenzner to dig up dirt on those who sit in judgement of you and those
who contradict your version of events.
>There's other indications that the president probably should
>not be impeached; for starters, the demands that he "admit"
>to the crime and all will be well. Try substituting "treason"
>or "bribery" for the crime that will be forgiven if admitted,
>and see how that sits with you. (For bribery, perhaps it is
>"give the money back".)
I fully agree with you here. At this point, there's nothing Clinton
could say that would satisfy me or that should satisfy someone sitting
in judgement of his crimes. The pols who say that they would consider
censure if he fessed up are wrong and are probably spending too much
time reading polls. The apology watch is a pathetic exercise. Either
the acts are deserving of impeachment and removal or they are not. I
think that the two articles currently under consideration are
borderline, and that reasonable people can disagree over their
impeachability. Congress is not blessed with an abundance of
reasonable people on either side of the aisle. However, we have this
wonderful feedback mechanism called an election. Like I said, sign up
with Jimmy's brigade, and let the call go out from sea to shining sea
that "This is WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!"
I imagine that if this were a Republican President, given the history
of confrontations with Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and Bob Packwood,
the Democrats would be screaming for his head. Let's not be under the
delusion that Maxine Waters and Barney Frank were opposed to
impeachment on the basis of a strict reading of, and reverence for,
the Constitution. They don't want the Party standard-bearer to go
down in history with the likes of Johnson and Nixon, plain and simple.
At the end of the day I feel we are still left with the following
questions:
Who do we trust to investigate the person who is the chief law
enforcement officer in the country (especially after he fires every
U.S. Attorney after assuming power in a move to install people who
will cover...er, I mean who share his vision of Federal law
enforcement)?
What exactly is an impeachable offense? This, as the framers
intended, will be a political decision, not a legal one, with the
decision-makers answerable to the people during the next election, so
the current mess we are in is useful in helping to answer this
question.
Does someone who is the object of a crude gesture by a public official
have any recourse? The rules of the Senate and House seem to indicate
that at a minimum an official in one of those bodies can be expelled.
The answer isn't so clear for a chief executive.
and a few other questions I had thought of at the beginning of this
post and have since forgot. :-)
-Matt
David Chase
> Which lies of Steele's are we
> to believe?
That's nothing I care about. I'm somewhat appalled that a
prosecutor would look for clerical errors in adoption papers
in an attempt to force her to testify. That she is a flaky
witness is not really relevant (except, perhaps, that if
she's a proven flaky witness, how can we ever believe her
testimony if it is coerced?)
There's also this problem of choosing who to believe and
who not to believe; we've got a real stellar cast of characters
here, and I cannot figure out what makes all of them tick.
Susan McDougal, for instance; you don't trust her word, and
I don't really myself, but why would she say what she has
said? If Clinton's made some deal with her, what deal could
he possibly make worth what she's been put through? Other
people, also not stellar witnesses (William Watt) have claimed
that Starr's investigators were selective in which of his
statements they chose to record: "I was told that they didn't
like the truth the way that I told it." Hale, Starr's
star witness for his Whitewater prosecutions, is described
by various people as a pathological liar, committed all
sorts of crimes in Arkansas, and apparently asked his
brother to lie on his behalf. Someone choosing to believe
Susan McDougal seems to be no less careful in their
choice of witnesses than Starr was with Hale.
> >Well, yes. That the question could have been asked in the
> >first place I find absurd.
>
> Why do you find it absurd? The only difference between WJC's Monica
> episode and his Paula episode is that the ditzy brat from Beverly
> Hills said "yes" while the Arkansas trailer-park-trash said "no".
But it doesn't matter. The case was dismissed, and it was predicted
it would be dismissed (Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker, and he predicted
the reason too) because Jones could not show any harm from the
incident. Given that the case was that obviously bogus (under
current sexual harrassment law), I'd hope that it could not even
get to the defendant-under-oath stage, never mind this specious
"pattern of behavior" crap that was used to justify questions
about Monica Lewinski.
> Oh, and Monica did get quite a bit of career help ...
Irrelevant to the (in)validity of Jones' case, unless
the aim is to demonstrate how great things would have
been for Paula if she had dallied at the hotel room a
bit longer (but does the sexual harrassment law even
recognize this sort of "damage"?)
> >0) You're accused of perjury in a nuisance civil suit
> > that is later dismissed because the plaintiff could
> > not even show she'd been harmed.
>
> Shouldn't that be "You've committed perjury..."?
In Clinton's case, that has yet to be shown (keep in mind
that perjury is some weird legal technical term similar
but not identical to lying under oath). Also note that
all that matters (in terms of the prosecutor's behavior)
is whether the prosecutor thinks you're guilty, and how
he acts based on that belief, and what limits there are
on his actions.
> >2) the prosecutor has leaked information to the press,
> What information are you referring to? The only thing that is illegal
> to leak is grand jury testimony. Do you have a specific instance
> you're referring to that is covered by said grand jury rule?
Don't recall the exact leak; details can be found in Salon
if you care. See
http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/10/cov_30newsc.html
for the whole thing, I've snagged two relevant paragraphs
below.
The judge cited two dozen specific examples of
newspaper and magazine articles and television
broadcasts as prima facie evidence that prosecutors in
Starr's office had illegally given information to
reporters.
...
And in a further rebuke to the independent counsel,
Johnson also upheld the broadest and strictest
interpretation of the secrecy rules, citing previous
rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit. Those rules, she wrote, encompass
not only "the direct revelation of grand jury
transcripts," but also any disclosure by prosecutors of
"the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of
testimony, [or] the strategy or direction of the
investigation."
> Why does Clinton need any sort of rebuke or punishment? According to
> you, he didn't do anything wrong, correct?
If I said that, it would be really, really helpful if you could
quote it.
If you return to the mistrial analogy, it is certainly
the case that people have committed serious crimes (i.e.,
where someone was hurt or killed) yet the investigation was
sufficiently botched that they were not convicted. I admit
that my reasoning is a mish-mash, but that is partly because
the reasoning of Clinton's accusers is a mish-mash. If it's
a question of law, then legal standards should apply, hence
the question of what does perjury technically mean, would this
actually be prosecuted, was the evidence material, etc. In
terms of lying or not, I'm inclined to give him "is" (I took
four years of Latin, I'm a big fan of conjugating verbs),
though not "alone" or failing to remember a blow job (perhaps
he was busy on the phone :-).
If it's a question of politics, then it becomes more a matter
of what "should" (my opinion of "should", of course) the outcome
be. Should the president have been asked questions about his
sex life under oath in the first place? As lies go, how does
this compare with other lies that we endure from our elected
officials? Given the limited choices we have for registering
our disapproval at various actions, what should we do?
For the president, there's ordinary criminal
prosecution, impeachment, maybe censure, plus (as Dan Quayle
and I both suggest, at least one of us in jest) not voting for
him in the next election. And, if none of these is appropriate,
do we think he's done enough damage to his reputation all by
himself; are we content to wait until he is gone, or are
we compelled to do something?
Had Starr and the various Republican members of the House
not gone quite so far over the top, I wouldn't be wondering
how to punish them for their actions. There's several
ways; I can certainly not vote for them in the next
election (fat lot of good that does me in Massachusetts),
I can send money to their opponents in the next election,
I can boycott corporations closely associated with their
supporters. In the short term, it appears that supporting
Clinton is one way to punish them. (It certainly seems to
annoy them.) I could support Larry Flynt, if there were
a way to do it w/o buying a copy of Hustler. (And he's so
much more cost-effective than Ken Starr :-).
Of course, if Clinton resigns at a strategic date, then Gore
gets the chance to run as an incumbent twice, which probably
won't help them much either. As far as Ken Starr goes,
supposing a court determines that he did in fact leak
grand jury testimony; that's a felony, which could perhaps
be prosecuted as vigorously as he has pursued Clinton.
Throw a prosecutor in jail, might make the other ones a
little more careful about following the rules.
> >There's other indications that the president probably should
> >not be impeached; for starters, the demands that he "admit"
> >to the crime and all will be well. Try substituting "treason"
> >or "bribery" for the crime that will be forgiven if admitted,
> >and see how that sits with you. (For bribery, perhaps it is
> >"give the money back".)
> I fully agree with you here.
Uh-oh.
> They don't want the Party standard-bearer to go
> down in history with the likes of Johnson and Nixon, plain and simple.
I have to say that I don't care much about Clinton's
place in history; he's done a pretty good job of digging
himself a memorable hole. It's not so clear he's the
standard-bearer for the party, either; given how he's
ripped off Republican policies in the past and annoyed
the Democrats who don't like those policies, I'm a little
surprised he's not in more danger of conviction. (On the
other hand, if he goes, then Gore is incumbent, and there
goes Gephardt's chances to run in 2000.)
> At the end of the day I feel we are still left with the following
> questions:
> Who do we trust to investigate the person who is the chief law
> enforcement officer in the country?
I'm not sure whether the independent counsel is necessarily
a bad idea, but this one seems to have turned out not so great.
There's been quite a number of them, and only a few turned
out to be terribly controversial (there's the Donovan and
Espy prosecutions, plus Clinton, not sure what the consensus
on the Iran-Contra investigation is). I also think that there's
a proper role for "digging up dirt"; for instance, in the case
of the FBI files, what I recall is that though nothing was ever
prosecuted, it did turn up that "the White House" was not being
terribly careful to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Find a gung-ho careless person, put them in a situation where
they might do something you don't want to be responsible
for, and tsk tsk tsk when they do it. Happens in business, too.
This does reflect badly on Clinton, even if nobody is even
indicted. That, to me, is appropriate dirt. It'd be jolly
fun if "managers" were actually held responsible for the
consequences of their "management", but I don't think that's
likely.
> What exactly is an impeachable offense?
One that causes the House to impeach, apparently :-).
> Does someone who is the object of a crude gesture by a public official
> have any recourse?
I really don't know. What happens when ordinary citizens
make crude sexual gestures? I gather that "nothing" is
often (*) the outcome, though I don't have much personal
experience with that, and don't wish to conduct the
experiment. (*) "often" means that if you repeat the crude
gesture, you're likely to encounter a not-nothing outcome.
The current sexual harrassment law (what I hear of it)
sounds iffy. I stay well clear of any remarks or
actions that would get me in trouble, but (on the
other hand) two of our best friends met on the job, had
a "relationship" of some sort, and have since gotten married,
had kids, etc. This doesn't sound like a terrible outcome
to me. I don't think they were in a direct manager-managee
relationship, but one was senior to the other, and working
together certainly increases the chances that you'll get
to know someone.
There's also some goofy anomalies; there
is a company (that shall remain nameless, because they
have the best of intentions and I think already know about
this problem) where several friends have worked, and they
have a very strict policy w.r.t. sexual harrassment, but
most of the women we know who worked there left saying that
they just didn't feel like they were part of the team.
They're not getting harrassed in the quid-pro-grope sense,
but they feel excluded nonetheless. There's other cases
where pockets within a company seem to not promote women
as quickly as you might think; a friend with seniority,
brains, dedication, and drive ended up leaving a job
because she just wasn't getting promotion that was
obviously due (I worked at the same company, she was
clearly doing work at least grade up from where she
was). That it might be because she was a woman and/or
short did cross her mind, but there's no way to prove
that, so all either of us could do is wonder.
There's some other company (I think it was a disk
drive manufacturer, not sure) where sexual harrassment
(what almost anyone would call harrassment) was common
for a good long time before anyone called them on it.
It was apparently almost a corporate policy to harrass.
I'm inclined to think that there really ought to be
some sort of a law here, because the market forces
are relatively weak. Nobody wants to get a reputation
as a troublemaker (notice I didn't name any names
above, and I'm talking about events years in the past),
which means that without some other recourse
people will simply leave and gripe to their friends,
leaving the job open to the next person to come down
the road. An outside observer might simply notice that
women seem not to hang around as long as men do ("and
that's why we prefer to hire men!")
> and a few other questions I had thought of at the beginning of this
> post and have since forgot. :-)
You have no recollection at this point in time, eh?
Mistakes were made, and read my lips, it depends upon
the definition of "is", "alone", and "sex".
David Chase
Larry M Headlund
David Chase <ch...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Matt Crane wrote:
<much deleted>
>
>
>> Oh, and Monica did get quite a bit of career help ...
>
>Irrelevant to the (in)validity of Jones' case, unless
>the aim is to demonstrate how great things would have
>been for Paula if she had dallied at the hotel room a
>bit longer (but does the sexual harrassment law even
>recognize this sort of "damage"?)
>
a quid pro quo for sex, with compliance being rewarded but
refusal _not_ being punished, a sexual harassment suit can proceed.
However, the judge did not find any evidence for this in the
Paula Jones case. As I recall, the only difference between
Jones' career and everybody else in Arkansas was she didn't get flowers
on secretaries' day.
Note that it is not sufficient for someone to get favors, there must
be a pattern _at the time of the alleged actions_ which illustrates
a quid pro quo. Note Starr charges that the help Monica got was
not for sex but for testimony or lack thereof.
>> >0) You're accused of perjury in a nuisance civil suit
>> > that is later dismissed because the plaintiff could
>> > not even show she'd been harmed.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "You've committed perjury..."?
>
>In Clinton's case, that has yet to be shown (keep in mind
>that perjury is some weird legal technical term similar
>but not identical to lying under oath).
Perjury requires both intent and relevance. It is a five part test.
>
>If you return to the mistrial analogy, it is certainly
>the case that people have committed serious crimes (i.e.,
>where someone was hurt or killed) yet the investigation was
>sufficiently botched that they were not convicted. I admit
>that my reasoning is a mish-mash, but that is partly because
>the reasoning of Clinton's accusers is a mish-mash. If it's
>a question of law, then legal standards should apply, hence
>the question of what does perjury technically mean, would this
>actually be prosecuted, was the evidence material, etc. In
>terms of lying or not, I'm inclined to give him "is" (I took
>four years of Latin, I'm a big fan of conjugating verbs),
>though not "alone" or failing to remember a blow job (perhaps
>he was busy on the phone :-).
>
As some one who has served as a technical expert witness in patent
cases, I would say that exact definitions are important. Of course,
patent cases often turn on the definitions of words. A recent
multi-million dollar (and that was just the legal expenses) case had
at its center the meaning of "predetermined".
In my experience, an opposing lawyer interested in facts would have
followed up the "is" question with a "has there ever been" question.
That this did not occur is significant.
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting
Matt Crane
wrote:
>Matt Crane wrote:
>> Which lies of Steele's are we
>> to believe?
>
>That's nothing I care about. I'm somewhat appalled that a
>prosecutor would look for clerical errors in adoption papers
>in an attempt to force her to testify.
I think you and others are jumping to conclusions regarding the
investigation of Steele and her adoption. From what I remember
reading, she has publically indicated that there were questions over
the legality of her adoption but that the problems were cleared up.
All of this happened before Starr arrived on the scene. I had thought
that Starr was investigating if any FOBs had a role in clearing up the
adoption or had exerted any other influence on her to change her
initial story.
> That she is a flaky
>witness is not really relevant (except, perhaps, that if
>she's a proven flaky witness, how can we ever believe her
>testimony if it is coerced?)
That she is flaky is relevant because she was calling Willey a liar
and was characterizing her as a Presidential groupie desperate for
money in the wake of her husbands suicide. But all of these is
neither here nor there in regards to the current articles of
impeachment.
>There's also this problem of choosing who to believe and
>who not to believe; we've got a real stellar cast of characters
>here, and I cannot figure out what makes all of them tick.
>Susan McDougal, for instance; you don't trust her word, and
>I don't really myself, but why would she say what she has
>said?
Being familiar with the way things work in Arkansas, I'm sure she can
think of plenty of things worse than playing the martyr if she isn't
lockstep will Bill.
> If Clinton's made some deal with her, what deal could
>he possibly make worth what she's been put through?
"Play ball and we won't ruin you"?
>I'd hope that it could not even
>get to the defendant-under-oath stage, never mind this specious
>"pattern of behavior" crap that was used to justify questions
>about Monica Lewinski.
Uh, the specious "pattern of behavior" crap was the type of discovery
procedure that Bill Clinton's feminist water-carriers fought tooth and
nail to codify into law.
>> Oh, and Monica did get quite a bit of career help ...
>
>Irrelevant to the (in)validity of Jones' case, unless
>the aim is to demonstrate how great things would have
>been for Paula if she had dallied at the hotel room a
>bit longer (but does the sexual harrassment law even
>recognize this sort of "damage"?)
It's a fuzzy area, but one worth investigating. If a boss shows a
pattern of seeing to it that his semen-gobblers are taken care of, I
would think a class action suit might be in order. :-) But we
digress...
>> >0) You're accused of perjury in a nuisance civil suit
>> > that is later dismissed because the plaintiff could
>> > not even show she'd been harmed.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "You've committed perjury..."?
>
>In Clinton's case, that has yet to be shown (keep in mind
>that perjury is some weird legal technical term similar
>but not identical to lying under oath). Also note that
>all that matters (in terms of the prosecutor's behavior)
>is whether the prosecutor thinks you're guilty, and how
>he acts based on that belief, and what limits there are
>on his actions.
>
>> Why does Clinton need any sort of rebuke or punishment? According to
>> you, he didn't do anything wrong, correct?
>
>If I said that, it would be really, really helpful if you could
>quote it.
My bad. I misunderstood your continued excuses for his actions ("bad
prosecutor", "bad laws", "Scaife! Scaife! Scaife! Scaife! Scaife!").
Well then, let's lay it on the line. Take a stand. What should
happen to a President who willfully lies under oath, encourages others
to do the same, and conspires to hide evidence that a plaintiff is
seeking?
Does the fact that the case is later thrown out or the testimony
deemed immaterial a mitigating factor? If your answer is "yes" to
this question, bear in mind that during one of the recent impeachment
trials of a Federal Judge (I can't remember if it was Hastings or
Walter Nixon), if my recollection is correct one of the articles of
impeachment was lying under oath over a matter that was later deemed
immaterial.
Then again, if I grant that we cannot hold the Prez. responsible
because the question was deemed immaterial, what does that say? We
can't have witnesses making unilateral decisions about what they think
is important to answer truthfully and what they think they can lie
about because it will be later deemed immaterial. Clinton went into
his deposition that day and made a conscious decision to lie under
oath. He conspired to hide evidence under subpoena. He went into a
grand jury and lied under oath once again.
>If you return to the mistrial analogy, it is certainly
>the case that people have committed serious crimes (i.e.,
>where someone was hurt or killed) yet the investigation was
>sufficiently botched that they were not convicted. I admit
>that my reasoning is a mish-mash, but that is partly because
>the reasoning of Clinton's accusers is a mish-mash.
The mistrial analogy isn't suitable for this case in my opinion. We
are talking about removing a guy from office, not locking him up.
When the stakes are such that one loses their rights, yes I would
agree that absolute adherence to rules of prosecution be adhered
to.
>If it's
>a question of law, then legal standards should apply, hence
>the question of what does perjury technically mean, would this
>actually be prosecuted, was the evidence material, etc. In
>terms of lying or not, I'm inclined to give him "is" (I took
>four years of Latin, I'm a big fan of conjugating verbs),
>though not "alone" or failing to remember a blow job (perhaps
>he was busy on the phone :-).
Heh.
>If it's a question of politics, then it becomes more a matter
>of what "should" (my opinion of "should", of course) the outcome
>be.
> Should the president have been asked questions about his
>sex life under oath in the first place?
But this particular "should" is a legal one, isn't it? If we say "He
shouldn't have been asked that question anyway, so I don't blame him
for lying", are we giving him a pass on his alleged perjury because it
is a brave act of civil disobediance? or is it a willful attempt to
conceal evidence he deems inconvenient?
>As lies go, how does
>this compare with other lies that we endure from our elected
>officials?
"No new taxes" and "I will have the most ethical administration in
history" are broken promises.
Not impeachable.
"I did not have sexual relations" is a lie.
Not impeachable unless given in sworn testimony.
"I did not know that Ollie North was running guns to the Contras"
should have had Reagan removed if Walsh had any evidence to the
contrary.
>Given the limited choices we have for registering
>our disapproval at various actions, what should we do?
>For the president, there's ordinary criminal
>prosecution,
Would you support indicting a sitting President?
> impeachment,
> maybe censure,
Censure does nothing. It is a resolution that says, "Bad boy!" and as
far as punishments go, means nothing to a person whose job it is to
question the very legitimacy of every resolution passed by Congress.
> plus (as Dan Quayle
>and I both suggest, at least one of us in jest) not voting for
>him in the next election.
That option isn't available to us now, is it? :-)
> And, if none of these is appropriate,
>do we think he's done enough damage to his reputation all by
>himself; are we content to wait until he is gone, or are
>we compelled to do something?
Damage to his reputation is contingent upon there being an accusation
of wrongdoing, an investigation, and proof. Either he did something
worth punishment, or he didn't. Shame is not punishment. And
besided, I think it's physically impossible for this guy to feel
shame. This is simply the campaign to end all campaigns for the guy
whose life has been nothing but politics since he got his J.D.
>As far as Ken Starr goes,
>supposing a court determines that he did in fact leak
>grand jury testimony; that's a felony, which could perhaps
>be prosecuted as vigorously as he has pursued Clinton.
I say prosecute to the fullest extent if credible evidence is found.
However, I'm not sure there's a symbolic semen-stained dress that can
nail Starr to the wall.
>Throw a prosecutor in jail, might make the other ones a
>little more careful about following the rules.
The same might be said of a President? No?
>> They don't want the Party standard-bearer to go
>> down in history with the likes of Johnson and Nixon, plain and simple.
>
>I have to say that I don't care much about Clinton's
>place in history; he's done a pretty good job of digging
>himself a memorable hole.
Nor am I concerned. Given the deserved tarnishing of JFKs once great
image as we discover exactly what he was all about, I imagine Clinton
will look worse than Tricky Dick when the dirt-diggers and biographers
manage to find every skeleton in his closet.
>It's not so clear he's the
>standard-bearer for the party, either; given how he's
>ripped off Republican policies in the past and annoyed
>the Democrats who don't like those policies, I'm a little
>surprised he's not in more danger of conviction.
That's because you truly underestimate the spinelessness of the modern
politician, and especially of the modern Democratic officeholder.
Party power is what it's all about now. It's not about ideas, it's
about belonging to the right club and getting as much as you can for
your fellow clubmembers.
> (On the
>other hand, if he goes, then Gore is incumbent, and there
>goes Gephardt's chances to run in 2000.)
President Dick Gephardt? Oh my. And I thought Clinton used the
phrase "working families" too much...
>> At the end of the day I feel we are still left with the following
>> questions:
>
>> Who do we trust to investigate the person who is the chief law
>> enforcement officer in the country?
>
>I'm not sure whether the independent counsel is necessarily
>a bad idea, but this one seems to have turned out not so great.
>There's been quite a number of them, and only a few turned
>out to be terribly controversial (there's the Donovan and
>Espy prosecutions, plus Clinton, not sure what the consensus
>on the Iran-Contra investigation is).
I think springing indictments on the eve of an election gives me a
pretty good idea of what Lawrence Walsh was about. His investigation
was totally warranted, but he was just as much of a political animal
as Starr is.
>I also think that there's
>a proper role for "digging up dirt"; for instance, in the case
>of the FBI files, what I recall is that though nothing was ever
>prosecuted, it did turn up that "the White House" was not being
>terribly careful to prevent it from happening in the first place.
The files fiasco is a terrible breach of security and indicates to me
at best an astonishing ignorance by the Clinton admistation of what
their priorities should be, and at worst, an orchestrated effort to
gather info on people on your enemies list.
And someone still has to show me why the Justice Department suddenly
felt the urge to investigate Billy Dale and the Travel Office after
Hillary fired career civil servants and replaced them with Arkansas
cronies. Is someone trying to tell me that the WH Travel Office is a
much more seedy den of corruption than the IRS, ATF, or FBI? Sadly,
it's hard to come up with proof of wrongdoing in a case like this when
all it takes for Clinton to harrass someone is a phone call over to
DOJ.
>> Does someone who is the object of a crude gesture by a public official
>> have any recourse?
>
>I really don't know. What happens when ordinary citizens
>make crude sexual gestures? I gather that "nothing" is
>often (*) the outcome, though I don't have much personal
>experience with that, and don't wish to conduct the
>experiment. (*) "often" means that if you repeat the crude
>gesture, you're likely to encounter a not-nothing outcome.
I have a relative who is a personnel director at a medium-sized
company. She goes to all sorts of private and government seminars on
this sort of thing. Her company's policy is that a verbal gesture
will get you a stiff reprimand for a first offense and dismissal for a
second offense. A physical gesture (exposing yourself, groping
someone, etc) will pretty much guarantee your walking papers. Given
that she meets with HR people from a variety of different companies at
these seminars where they help to hash out such policies, my guess is
that this is the rule and not the exception.
And in many places you can get arrested pretty quickly for urinating
in public (I know it's only a misdemeanor). But what do we do when
you've got a Chief Executive who feels he can take liberties with low
level folks from one of his agencies? My, my, my the questions we are
forced to address when we elect people like Bill Clinton to office.
>The current sexual harrassment law (what I hear of it)
>sounds iffy. I stay well clear of any remarks or
>actions that would get me in trouble, but (on the
>other hand) two of our best friends met on the job, had
>a "relationship" of some sort, and have since gotten married,
>had kids, etc. This doesn't sound like a terrible outcome
>to me. I don't think they were in a direct manager-managee
>relationship, but one was senior to the other, and working
>together certainly increases the chances that you'll get
>to know someone.
The current law (what I hear of it as well) are certainly
well-intentioned, but are tilted so far in favor of an accusor that
due process is almost thrown out the window.
<major snippage of discussion that could lead us down the path of
glass ceilings, equal pay for equal work, and other unrelated
business>
Happy New Year...
-Matt
Elisabeth Anne Riba
examples of why he should be impeached. However, the House did not find
enough evidence to impeach Clinton on those charges. Therefore, they are
moot for the time being.
Instead, let's look at the first charge he was actually impeached for.
Excerpt from Article I[Footnote 1]:
"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal
grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William
Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading
testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate
Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading
testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac tion brought against
him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney
to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his
corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede
the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."
Keep in mind that Clinton was not impeached over his testimony in the
Paula Jones case. This is his interview with the Office of
Independent Counsel we're talking about (the videotape which was aired
in September) and not his testimony in the Paula Jones case.
Now, the first thing you may notice in this charge is that nowhere
does it say *which* statements are considered perjurious. Makes it a
bit harder to defend when the charges are so vague. Normally, perjury
convictions point to specific testimony which are lies.
Instead, we have to look at the Starr Report [2] and the Judiciary
Committee Report [3] to get some idea of what statements they claim
are lies.
1. The nature and details of his relationship:
a. In Clinton's testimony, he claimed that his relationship with
Lewinsky began in early 1996; she claimed it started in late 1995. By
the federal definition of perjury[4], the testimony has to be relevant
to be perjurious. He's already admitted that they did have a
relationship. Does it make any difference when the relationship
began?
In addition, sometimes it can be a matter of judgement in determining
when a relationship started. Technically, my relationship with my
fiance began in October, 1994, when I asked him if he wanted to start
"going out." However, we usually mark our anniversary as December,
1994, when we had our first date. So, when did our relationship
start? When I first asked him out or when we had our first date? Is
either one *wrong*? If I said our relationship began in October, and
he says it started in December, would one of us be lying?
When people say that the issue is perjury, not sex, Michael Moore
likes to answer by eliminating sex from the equation. Let's
substitute the word golf for sex. The president is accused of lying
about playing golf with Lewinsky. "She says they first played golf in
November, 1995. He claims they didn't start until early 1996." Mind
you, he's answering these questions in 1998 -- over two years after
the events in question -- so how clearly can you recall exact dates?
b. The Judiciary Committee also counts as perjury the fact that
Clinton claimed he was alone with Lewinsky "on certain occasions" and
they had "occasional" telephone sex. They call use of the word
"occasion" an intentional lie and claim 20 sexual encounters and 17
phone conversations in more than a year are greater than "occasional."
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "occasional" as an event
"occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals." So how often is
something that's "occasional"?
Again with the golf analogy. "He's lying when he said they played
golf on occasion, because they actually played golf twenty times."
c. In his OIC testimony, Clinton said he believed that the definition
of sexual relations in the Paula Jones case did not include oral sex.
The Judiciary Committee thinks that's a lie.
During the Judiciary hearings, they played some videotape at the start
of the Paula Jones trial. There was a lot of debate over the
definition of sexual relations. At one point, the judge commented
that "I'm not sure Mr. Clinton knows all these definitions, anyway."
So the question is whether Clinton "understood" that the definition of
sex included oral sex and lied about it, or whether he honestly
thought the definition only meant intercourse. Now, how do you prove
that in a court of law? How can you prove what a person thought?
Golf: "He testified that they never played golf. In fact, they did
play miniature golf several times. He says he thought that when they
asked about golf, miniature golf wasn't included. He's lying because
he knew golf meant miniature golf as well."
d. Other issues involving the "nature and details of his relationship"
fall under the question of whether he touched her and where. Since
there were no witnesses to their sexual encounters, this is purely his
word versus hers. The best you could do here is have them both reveal
every last detail of their sexual encounters and then compare the blow
by blow detail. But it still comes down to whose words you believe
with no way to prove them.
2. Prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him:
The President was not impeached over his testimony in the Paula Jones
case, but for what he said to the OIC *about* his Paula Jones
testimony. Apparently, they didn't believe his explanations for why
he said what he said. Again, there's no specifics about which
statements fall into this category, but it seems to be more of the
same.
3. Prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to
make to a Federal judge:
Again, he's accused of lying in his explanations of what happened
during the Paula Jones case, not for lying in the Paula Jones case
itself. According to most reports, at the time of the Paula Jones
trial, the President's lawyer did not know that there actually had
been a relationship. So the lawyer held up Monica Lewinsky's
affidavit, in which she said there had been no sexual relationship,
and said that meant "there is no absolutely no sex of any kind in any
manner, shape or form." The grand jury thought Clinton should have
corrected his lawyers comments and asked Clinton why he didn't speak
up about it. Clinton said he wasn't paying attention.
That's the lie they're charging him with here. He claimed he wasn't
following all the exchanges between his lawyer and the other lawyers,
while the Judiciary Committee said he was paying attention. How do
you prove whether someone is paying attention. The Judiciary
Committee report says that Clinton was looking at his lawyer at the
time, so he must have been paying attention. But there have been many
times when I have sat and stared at a lecturer, and my eyes glaze
over, my mind wanders elsewhere, and I lose all track of the outside
world (dratted attention-deficit!). I'm still looking straight at the
person, and outside observers may think I'm absorbing every word, but
I'm thinking of something else entirely. And again, the standard of
perjury is relevance. Is this really relevant?
Interestingly enough, this charge is repeated in Article III (the
other article that was approved by the House) Article III, (5) "On
January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action
brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge
characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed
relevant by the judge." This is the same allegation. Should this be
considered double jeopardy?
4. His corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to
impede the discovery of evidence:
The president was charged with obstruction of justice in Article III.
This accuses him of committing perjury in covering up the obstruction
of justice. Again, this sounds like double jeopardy. Not only is he
charged with obstruction of justice (and Article III includes charges
of perjury) but he's separately charged with committing perjury about
the alleged obstruction of justice.
So that's what I see when I look at Article I. Now, I don't think the
President is above the law, but I am willing to give the President the
benefit of the doubt. The Judiciary Committee is making some pretty
picayune charges (when the relationship started, how often is
occasional) that are near impossible to prove (what he believed about
the definition, whether he paid attention). Therefore, I just don't
think they rise to the level of impeachable crimes.
Mind you, there are other issues as well. Frankly, I don't think
Clinton should ever have been asked about his sex life in the first
place, making everything that stems from that revelation suspect. I
also have a lot of problems with the independent counsel and how he
conducted the case. When the foundation is built on shaky ground
(illegal evidence about something irrelevant) then it's harder to
trust anything based on that. However, most of that is covered in David
Chase's excellent post of December 24.
Understand?
________
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/artic
les122098.htm
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icre
port.htm
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/pdfs/hrep830.
pdf
[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch79.html -- see Section 1623 on
grand jury testimony
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bctes
t092198_4.htm
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Larry M Headlund
Matt Crane <mcr...@thecia.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:13:49 GMT, David Chase <ch...@world.std.com>
>wrote:
>>Matt Crane wrote:
>
>And someone still has to show me why the Justice Department suddenly
>felt the urge to investigate Billy Dale and the Travel Office after
>Hillary fired career civil servants and replaced them with Arkansas
>cronies. Is someone trying to tell me that the WH Travel Office is a
>much more seedy den of corruption than the IRS, ATF, or FBI? Sadly,
>it's hard to come up with proof of wrongdoing in a case like this when
>all it takes for Clinton to harrass someone is a phone call over to
>DOJ.
The White House Travel office is not part of Civil Service, hence can
they can be dismissed at will. James B. Stewart in _Blood Sport_ (Stewart
is a (former?) WSJ reporter and not a Clinton admirer) gives the Clintons
a clean bill on this. What I got out of this episode is that it is
looking for trouble to mess with people like the travel office who have
been doing favors for reporters for a long time.
David Chase
> Well then, let's lay it on the line. Take a stand. What should
> happen to a President who willfully lies under oath, encourages others
> to do the same, and conspires to hide evidence that a plaintiff is
> seeking?
You need to be more specific. For instance, you say "lie
under oath", not perjury. You say "encourages others to
do the same" which can encompass everything from bribery
and threats to simply repeating the lie. If you want an
unambiguous answer, you'll have to ask an unambiguous
question.
> >If it's a question of politics, then it becomes more a matter
> >of what "should" (my opinion of "should", of course) the outcome
> >be.
> > Should the president have been asked questions about his
> >sex life under oath in the first place?
> But this particular "should" is a legal one, isn't it?
Why? Seems to me that it is outright bullshit that someone
alleging sexual misbehavior on my part could, without even
making a credible case that they had been harmed, put me
under oath and proceed to ask me questions about sexual
activities years later and unrelated to the matter under
question. This SHOULD not be possible, whether the person
being asked is you, me, the president, or anyone else.
If it happens that this is current law and current practice,
it still SHOULD not be possible.
> If we say "He
> shouldn't have been asked that question anyway, so I don't blame him
> for lying", are we giving him a pass on his alleged perjury because it
> is a brave act of civil disobediance?
Or too trivial, and clearly the result of political abuse of
the legal system, hence probably one of those crimes in the
gap between "any crimes" and "high crimes"? Assuming, of
course, that anyone actually demonstrates that it is "perjury"
in the legal sense, else it is not even a crime.
> > And, if none of these is appropriate,
> >do we think he's done enough damage to his reputation all by
> >himself; are we content to wait until he is gone, or are
> >we compelled to do something?
>
> Damage to his reputation is contingent upon there being an accusation
> of wrongdoing, an investigation, and proof.
The new adjective "Clintonesque" to describe tortured mendacity
is not damage to his reputation? Somehow, I think people are likely
to remember all this.
David Chase
Charles Demas
David Chase <ch...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Matt Crane wrote:
>
>> Well then, let's lay it on the line. Take a stand. What should
>> happen to a President who willfully lies under oath, encourages others
>> to do the same, and conspires to hide evidence that a plaintiff is
>> seeking?
>
>under oath", not perjury. You say "encourages others to
>do the same" which can encompass everything from bribery
>and threats to simply repeating the lie. If you want an
>unambiguous answer, you'll have to ask an unambiguous
>question.
There is no need to be more specific. This is not a criminal trial,
it is political. Entirely different rules apply. I don't see the need
to try and make a checklist, as some would like to make it seem.
Whether it was perjury or not might be relevant in a criminal trial,
but as I said, this isn't a criminal trial.
In the final analysis, it will come down to this, "Should President
Clinton be removed from his office because of what he has done."
That's it in a nutshell, it encompasses all the points, but it doesn't
have to be really specific. Each Senator will have to make that
political decision separately.
WAG the FINGER
Bill Clinton, our Republic's highest ranking prostitution prosecutor and
"deadbeat dad" punisher, appears to have fathered a little baby by
having illegal sex with a prostitute and has refused to pay child
support for 13 years. DNA testing will soon verify or refute this.
Bill Clinton, our Republic's highest ranking "smoking police" official,
used a tobacco product as an anal/vaginal sex tool.
Bill Clinton, our Republic's highest ranking federal sexual harassment
officer, had non-reproductive sex with a federal intern, violating
federal workplace regulations.
If Bill Clinton were a Libertarian, he would advocate decriminalizing
contracts for sex, and he would advocate freedom of choice with the
private use of tobacco products.
But Bill Clinton is not a Libertarian, he is a two-faced hypocrite.
HILTON HEAD, S.C. (Reuters) - Seeking to build on gains
in collection of delinquent child-support payments, President
Clinton said Thursday he would propose new steps to crack
down on "deadbeat" parents.
Bill, You're No Desert Fox By Eric Margolis
Irrepressible Saddam Hussein, the Energizer Bunny of Arab politics,
popped out from the smoking rubble of Iraq last week, beat his drum, and
proclaimed yet another victory over the 'American and British criminal
imperialists.'
The Clinton Administration was also busy proclaiming victory over Great
Satan Saddam. It was merely a coincidence, Administration spin doctors
assured, that 'Operation Desert Fox' was launched on the eve of
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Why the operation was
named after a German WWII field marshall remained a mystery.
*The total operational cost of Clinton's Impeachment Bombing, including
ordinance, was at least US $2.6 billion, not counting enormous stress on
ship and aircraft crews and wear on equipment. On top of this,
deployment of US forces around Iraq costs $20 million daily. All of
these funds are being drawn from Pentagon current operating budgets,
meaning that readiness, maintenance, and training of other forces are
being gutted to pay for the endless, sterile confrontation with Iraq.
*Iraq says the American attacks killed 62 soldiers and wounded 180, a
figure not disputed by the Pentagon. Killing each Iraqi soldier thus
cost US taxpayers about $18 million in munitions alone. Dropping sacks
of cash wound have been cheaper.
*US forces fired 400 cruise missiles and dropped 600 precision-guided
bombs. These munitions alone cost US taxpayers $1.1 billion. The
Pentagon claims 85% hit their targets, which is likely true. Alarmingly,
US warstocks of missiles and precision guided munitions are now gravely
depleted, just as the danger of an attack by North Korea's 1.2
million-man armed forces is increasing.
*Main targets: Guard barracks. The British, scorned by Iraq as
'America's attack poodle,' claimed to have destroyed a hanger filled
with 'Saddam's drones of death,' a lurid fantasy worthy of Fu Manchu.
*Iraq, described by Clinton as a 'threat to the world,' couldn't shoot
down even one attacking aircraft. It proved utterly defenceless.
'Thousands' of civilians were killed or injured, says Baghdad, though it
showed no proof.
*The attack failed to isolate Saddam or provoke an uprising, but,
ironically, Europe moved sharply away from America's crusade against
Iraq, demanding a new policy, and easing of sanctions.
*US operations against Iraq bear great similarity to Britain's 19th
century colonial 'small wars,' in which then high-tech cannon,
rapid-fire rifles, and Gatling guns were employed to mow down mobs of
spear-waving Dervishes, Zulu, and Pathan. Such massacres bring little
glory on the Joint Chiefs who direct these turkey shoots, or on the
airmen and rocketeers who conduct them.
*After doing its worst to Iraq, the US is back to square one. Iraq, by
contrast, has succeeded in seriously undermining US-British sanctions,
and even gained sympathy. America's cruel, fruitless policy of starving
and bombing Iraq is a glaring failure. New policy is urgently needed.
Bill Clinton, you're certainly no Erwin Rommel.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
Your welcome, and thank you too. It's hard to find a forum where we can
actually *discuss* the issue, rather than dealing with loyalists on
each side trying to shout the other down.
: Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote on Dec. 31, 1998:
: >When people say that the issue is perjury, not sex, Michael Moore
: >likes to answer by eliminating sex from the equation. Let's
: >substitute the word golf for sex. The president is accused of lying
: >about playing golf with Lewinsky. "She says they first played golf in
: >November, 1995. He claims they didn't start until early 1996." Mind
: >you, he's answering these questions in 1998 -- over two years after
: >the events in question -- so how clearly can you recall exact dates?
: Does this mean it would be obviously impeachable, or obviously
: unimpeachable, if he'd lied about golf instead of lying about
: sex?
Depends whether it was relevant to the case.
. . .
: When I testified that I did not rob the bank, I meant I did not
: rob the bank by putting on a Spiderman mask and driving a cement
: truck through the wall. I did not realize that the term "rob
: the bank" included pointing a gun at the teller and telling her
: to fill my bag with 10s and 20s.
Now that is an unfair comparison. This example involves somebody lying
about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
David Chase
> Now that is an unfair comparison. This example involves somebody lying
> about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
> extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
And even if not legal, it is rarely prosecuted. I'm no fan of
selective prosecution; either enforce the law, or make it not
a law.
David Chase
sch...@my-dejanews.com
l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba) wrote:
> David S Chesler (che...@world.std.com) wrote:
> : Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote on Dec. 31, 1998:
> : >likes to answer by eliminating sex from the equation. Let's
> : >substitute the word golf for sex. The president is accused of lying
> : >about playing golf with Lewinsky. "She says they first played golf in
> : >November, 1995. He claims they didn't start until early 1996." Mind
> : >you, he's answering these questions in 1998 -- over two years after
> : >the events in question -- so how clearly can you recall exact dates?
>
> : rob the bank by putting on a Spiderman mask and driving a cement
> : truck through the wall. I did not realize that the term "rob
> : the bank" included pointing a gun at the teller and telling her
> : to fill my bag with 10s and 20s.
>
> about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
> extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
Slightly unfair, but is it really that hard to perceive of situations
where testimony about a non-criminal act may be pertinant to a criminal
(or civil) trial?
To use the golf example, and to make it a civil case, what if someone were
struck and injured by a golfball while standing in the ellipse in front of
the White House during the month of December, 1995. The family of the victim
sues the President claiming that he was hitting golf balls from the White
House Lawn. During the trial, the President testifies that he had never
played golf prior to April of 1996 and thus couldn't have hit a golf ball far
enough to have stuck the victim. Ignore whether you think people struck with
golf balls should be able to collect damages, or whether you think this was a
right wing golf ball plot. Isn't it clear that testimony about a non-criminal
act (golfing) could be relevant in a civil trial?
-Chris
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
: > Now that is an unfair comparison. This example involves somebody lying
: > about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
: > extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
: And even if not legal, it is rarely prosecuted. I'm no fan of
: selective prosecution; either enforce the law, or make it not
: a law.
A woman interviewed on NPR last night had an interesting observation, and
my memory's not so good to relate the absolute accuracy of this.
The woman commented that during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, Mark
Furhman lied on the stand about material relevant to the case (it could
be argued that his testimony substantially affected the case, because
when the truth came out, it hurt the credibility of the entire police
force and the police evidence)
However, Furhman was never prosecuted for perjury, and at the time (this
is what I don't remember) pundits said that perjury charges were rare.
Now, the Republicans in Congress would have you believe that *everybody*
who lies under oath is prosecuted for perjury, and it would be a crime
*not* to hold Clinton to the same standard.
David A Karr
>: > Now that is an unfair comparison. This example involves somebody lying
>: > about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
>: > extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
At least it shouldn't be, IMO. But the president actually is accused
of having sexual relations with a subordinate, which at least at many
employers would (I think) put him in jeopardy of dismissal from his
job--which is exactly what is at stake here. So I think the punishment
does fit the "crime". I do think there are other issues to be
considered here, of course, such as what we want policies about
sex in the workplace to be.
Time Magazine (I think) ran a piece last summer about the "revenge of
Paula Jones": while the Jones lawsuit was dismissed for lack of an
actual law that was violated, the legal people have been hard at work
plugging that loophole.
>However, Furhman was never prosecuted for perjury, and at the time (this
>is what I don't remember) pundits said that perjury charges were rare.
Is this all true? My memory is even fuzzier than yours, but I seem to
recall Furhman getting socked with all kinds of punishment. I'm quite
sure he did at least lose his job, didn't he?
I do recall quite clearly (because I was living in Ithaca, NY at the
time) that a few years ago there was a NY state trooper who was found
to have lied in order to get convictions in some criminal cases in
nearby towns. He not only lost his position but was put in jail.
I think in that case there was evidence tampering as well, however,
not just perjury.
More recently, last September (?) wasn't a Boston police officer
sentenced to jail for perjury in a case where some white officers
had beat up a black undercover officer?
I also recall an old film dramatization of a real-life murder case
in which a key plot point was that the defendant previously served
time for perjury.
What gives me second thoughts about the impeachment trial is due
process. Maybe the second perjury (in front of the grand jury) was
really the sort that would be prosecuted (all else being equal) but
the first was not; in fact even many of the House Republicans seem to
think so. But if the second perjury occurred only because Ken Starr
was attempting to prosecute the first supposed perjury, and for no
other reason, should any of this be admissible? We don't prosecute
possession of drugs that were found in the course of a search that had
no really good reason for being conducted in the first place, or do
we? While it's no secret that I dislike Bill Clinton, we're in trouble
if we can't give a fair break even to the people we don't like.
I'm just not sure what to believe is due process in a case like this.
--
David A. Karr "Groups of guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein."
ka...@shore.net --Decca executive Dick Rowe, 1962
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >: > Now that is an unfair comparison. This example involves somebody lying
: >: > about committing a crime. The president is accused of lying about
: >: > extramarital sex, which I don't think is illegal in DC...
: At least it shouldn't be, IMO. But the president actually is accused
: of having sexual relations with a subordinate, which at least at many
: employers would (I think) put him in jeopardy of dismissal from his
: job--which is exactly what is at stake here. So I think the punishment
: does fit the "crime". I do think there are other issues to be
: considered here, of course, such as what we want policies about
: sex in the workplace to be.
Regarding Monica's relevance to Paula Jones trial:
A lot of people in my company have romantic relationships and often marry
other coworkers. At one point, there were three married couples in my
department. In one case, one partner was a supervisor and the other a
subordinate in the same department, although one did not directly report
to the other.
Is that fact relevant if one of them is accused of sexually harrassing
somebody else?
Does the fact that they've had romantic relations with one coworker have
any bearing on a harassment case?
Sure, if Monica had said she was harassed, then it would be relevant
information. But a consensual relationship?
: Is this all true? My memory is even fuzzier than yours, but I seem to
: recall Furhman getting socked with all kinds of punishment. I'm quite
: sure he did at least lose his job, didn't he?
I don't recall a perjury trial, but I never followed the case very
closely (in fact, I tried to avoid as much as I could) that's why I said
I wasn't sure.
And I'm not saying that police are never prosecuted for perjury, but she
was talking about this well-publicized case of perjury, which was more
relevant, yet not as roundly criticized as the allegations against Clinton.
I think Alan Dershowitz talked about this during his testimony before the
committee:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/pmtext120198.htm
Charles Demas
>and my memory's not so good to relate the absolute accuracy of this.
>
>The woman commented that during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, Mark
>Furhman lied on the stand about material relevant to the case (it could
>be argued that his testimony substantially affected the case, because
>when the truth came out, it hurt the credibility of the entire police
>force and the police evidence)
>
>is what I don't remember) pundits said that perjury charges were rare.
Sorry Liz, but Furman was prosecuted and rather than fight it, he pled
out, and got a suspended sentence (IIRC), but it does mean that he's
a convicted felon, and lost some rights as a result.
>Now, the Republicans in Congress would have you believe that *everybody*
>who lies under oath is prosecuted for perjury, and it would be a crime
>*not* to hold Clinton to the same standard.
Now that this Furman example is put in perspective, how do you feel about
holding Clinton to the same standard. :-)
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Now that this Furman example is put in perspective, how do you feel about
: holding Clinton to the same standard. :-)
Reread my lengthy post explaining article I. I don't believe Clinton's
conduct meets the standards for perjury. The accusers still haven't
pointed to specific statements Clinton made that were perjurious, but I
assume if they had anything stronger than what I divined from the
evidence at hand, I'm sure they would've mentioned it.
[Like Starr neglected to mention Filegate/Whitewater/Travelgate in his
report, and only exonerated the Clintons when pressed the point in the
Judiciary Committee hearings. If they had something good, somebody
should've brought it out as ammo.]
David A Karr
>: At least it shouldn't be, IMO. But the president actually is accused
>: of having sexual relations with a subordinate, which at least at many
>
>A lot of people in my company have romantic relationships and often marry
This is a valid point. Though your examples are all subtly different
from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, do we want to fire every executive
who marries her secretary? I suspect not. But precedents among
employers are mixed. IIRC, a male teacher at my high school was said
to have had relations with girls on an overnight field trip; nothing
happened except that overnights were canceled. On the other hand,
when I was in graduate school, the teaching assistants were told in no
uncertain terms never to "pick up" a student in any class we taught
(or at least "wait until the course is over"). In my case, at least,
being married meant for me that this rule was moot.
I grant that it is highly debatable whether my graduate school's rule
was a good one. On the other hand, *no* rules about relations in the
workplace seems to give carte blanche to a de facto policy in which
the only way for female employees to succeed is for them to sleep
their way to the top. It really seems to me a murky issue.
What I do *not* believe (yet) is that the fact that the issue is murky
means that it is none of our (collective) business.
I'm also not blind to the fact that the prosecution is being driven
largely by people who don't share my values or views on this matter.
My own perceptions are colored by the fact that months ago when the
accusations of Ms. Jones and Ms. Willey were being discussed--long
before impeachment was seriously considered--many people seemed to be
trying to dismiss these charges for what I could only see as partisan
reasons: Mr. Clinton supported a certain narrow set of policies they
liked, so they changed their tune on sex-in-the-workplace just because
it was their "buddy" who got in trouble this time.
>Does the fact that they've had romantic relations with one coworker have
>any bearing on a harassment case?
I really think it might. In two cases, Mr. Clinton is said to have
exposed his private parts to a subordinate. The obvious difference
(magnified as much as is plausible) is that one turned out not to
welcome the advance, whereas the other may literally have asked for
it. If we knew that a person was willing to make such an advance
where (let's suppose) he knew it would be accepted, do we have
evidence that he's more likely to have made such an advance where he
only hoped (but did not know) it would be accepted? I tend to think
so, but you're welcome to advance an argument why the evidence should
be excluded anyway.
>And I'm not saying that police are never prosecuted for perjury, but she
>was talking about this well-publicized case of perjury, which was more
>relevant, yet not as roundly criticized as the allegations against Clinton.
OK, then I definitely think the opposite precedent was set: Furhman
was vilified from here to kingdom come in the eyes of the people (not
to say he didn't have supporters, but I don't remember seeing as many
as Clinton has), and he was summarily forced out of his position of
public trust. I believe Mr. Clinton is getting *much* gentler
treatment, although the case is also less severe (the underlying issue
being only possible sexual harassment in one case, and certainly a
murder in the other).
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: >David A Karr (ka...@shore.net) wrote:
: >: At least it shouldn't be, IMO. But the president actually is accused
: >: of having sexual relations with a subordinate, which at least at many
: >: employers would (I think) put him in jeopardy of dismissal [...]
: >
: >A lot of people in my company have romantic relationships and often marry
: >other coworkers. [...]
: This is a valid point. Though your examples are all subtly different
: from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, do we want to fire every executive
: who marries her secretary?
Well, that's one way to end Bill Gates' monopoly. :)
[His wife was a Microsoft employee]
Charles Demas
>
>: Now that this Furman example is put in perspective, how do you feel about
>: holding Clinton to the same standard. :-)
>
>Reread my lengthy post explaining article I. I don't believe Clinton's
>conduct meets the standards for perjury. The accusers still haven't
>pointed to specific statements Clinton made that were perjurious, but I
>assume if they had anything stronger than what I divined from the
>evidence at hand, I'm sure they would've mentioned it.
Come on, Clinton said he had no recolection of ever being alone with Monica.
How did that semen stain get on the dress? Was someone else there watching?
I think not.
Surely he remembered those instances of oral sex, and his statement that
he didn't recall is simply perjurious.
Furman got nailed for perjury for not remembering that he said the N-word.
One could argue that it wasn't perjury, because O.J. got off, therefore
it wasn't relevant, but Furman pled out because he didn't have the money
to fight it (among other reasons according to him).
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >Reread my lengthy post explaining article I. I don't believe Clinton's
: >pointed to specific statements Clinton made that were perjurious, but I
: >assume if they had anything stronger than what I divined from the
: >evidence at hand, I'm sure they would've mentioned it.
: Come on, Clinton said he had no recolection of ever being alone with Monica.
*HOWEVER* he was not impeached for his comments in the Paula Jones trial,
so that's irrelevant. The perjury impeachment was only for his comments
to Ken Starr and his team in the videotaped inquisition.
Charles Demas
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Charles Demas (de...@sunspot.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >Reread my lengthy post explaining article I. I don't believe Clinton's
>: >conduct meets the standards for perjury. The accusers still haven't
>: >pointed to specific statements Clinton made that were perjurious, but I
>: >assume if they had anything stronger than what I divined from the
>: >evidence at hand, I'm sure they would've mentioned it.
>
>: Come on, Clinton said he had no recolection of ever being alone with Monica.
>
>*HOWEVER* he was not impeached for his comments in the Paula Jones trial,
>so that's irrelevant. The perjury impeachment was only for his comments
>to Ken Starr and his team in the videotaped inquisition.
IIRC, the statement that he didn't recall being alone with Monica
was made to the grand jury called by Ken Starr.
David Chase
> >*HOWEVER* he was not impeached for his comments in the Paula Jones trial,
> >so that's irrelevant. The perjury impeachment was only for his comments
> >to Ken Starr and his team in the videotaped inquisition.
Charles Demas wrote:
> IIRC, the statement that he didn't recall being alone with Monica
> was made to the grand jury called by Ken Starr.
Busy on the phone, busy on the phone, Bill's a very busy,
overscheduled, multitalented guy :-). Affairs of state
must take precedence over, err, affairs of state (thank
you, Mel Brooks).
And actually, on that detail, it was only in the Jones depositions
that he claimed to have been alone. From the Starr report (online at
my ISP):
----------------
3. The President's Grand Jury Testimony
On August 17, 1998, the President testified to the grand jury
and began his testimony by reading a statement
admitting that he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky:
When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early
1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong.(145)
----------------
Looking at some of the grand jury testimony, too, it is tortured
stuff. I think this falls into the category of "don't try this
unless you are a Real Lawyer" (and probably not even then), but
look at Clinton's "answer" to this question:
Q: So you didn't do any of those three things --
A: You --
Q: -- with Monica Lewinsky.
A: You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have
sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.
Q: Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, touching her
genitalia?
A: That's correct.
I know why they don't want kids to see this stuff, and it's
not because of the sex. "You are free to infer that I did
not sit on my brother's head."
David Chase
WAG the FINGER
> >you, he's answering these questions in 1998 -- over two years after
> >the events in question -- so how clearly can you recall exact dates?
Is there ONE married person here who cannot recall the exact month of
the past 24 in which you played tonsil hockey to completion with a
person other than your spouse?
Probably only space aliens and porn stars cannot honestly remember such
things. But I bet that any trained space alien who lives on earth for
50 years will have some sort of grasp as to the meaning of the earth
English word "alone."