Constructing Arguments
david ford
understanding other's arguments. Using the method should help bring
increased clarity to your arguing with others and to your thoughts. If
you debate topics such as gun control, the death penalty, abortion,
euthanasia, and the legalization of drugs, this post should prove
useful, an earlier version of which was posted under the title "Arguing
For Impeachment."
Ramage, John D. and John C. Bean. _Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with
Readings_ (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998), 721pp.
In the chapter "The Logical Structure of Arguments," they discuss a
model of argumentation described in the 1950s by philosopher Stephen
Toulmin. Toulmin ditched formal logic in favor of a courtroom-type
approach. Here's the model:
ENTHYMEME: a claim having a "because" clause. [example: Clinton
should be impeached because of his pattern of committing
perjury in a civil deposition. As a side note, generating a
large number of enthymemes is a powerful tool in thinking of
new arguments.]
CLAIM: "the point or position you are trying to get your audience
to accept" [example: Clinton should be impeached.]
STATED REASON: the because clause [example: because of his pattern
/ of committing perjury in a civil deposition.]
\ GROUNDS: evidence in the form of testimony, data, and examples that
supports the stated reason
WARRANT, i.e., assumption: "the originally unstated assumption
/ behind your enthymeme." The warrant is the "statement
/ of belief, value, principle, and so on, that, when
\ accepted by an audience, warrants or underwrites your
\ argument"
BACKING: arguing that supports the warrant
CONDITIONS OF REBUTTAL: "your acknowledgement of the limits of your
claim--those conditions under which it does not hold true, in
anticipation of an adversary's counterargument against your
reason and grounds or against your warrant and backing"
QUALIFIER: "words or phrases limiting the force of your claim"
The key places where attack can be made by an opponent are the grounds
and the warrant's backing. If an opponent demolishes the grounds, or
refutes your warrant's backing, or both, the entire argument falls. The
model should become more clear as we look at an example:
ENTHYMEME: Clinton should be impeached because of his pattern of
committing perjury in a civil deposition.
CLAIM: Clinton should be impeached.
STATED REASON: because of his pattern of committing perjury in a civil
deposition.
GROUNDS:
example 1 of lying on 17 Jan 1998, from Starr's Report at
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/starr_report/2toc.html
example 2
example 3
observation by constitutional lawyer A about the example, saying
something like "This is clearly perjury."
example 4
observation by criminal law lawyer B about the example, saying
"This is what is known in my profession as perjury, a felony."
example 5
To sum up, there exists a pattern of perjury in Clinton's 17 Jan
1998 deposition.
WARRANT, i.e. assumption: a pattern of perjury by the President of the
United States in a civil deposition is an impeachable offense.
BACKING for warrant: this is the hardest part. You've got to present
one or more lines of argument supporting the contention that
repeated perjury by a president in a civil case is impeachable.
One possibility is the following:
Perjury designed to prevent the other side-- here, Paula Jones--
from obtaining helpful-to-her testimony is as bad or worse than
bribery. Bribery is, of course, mentioned in the Constitution's
Article II, Section 4, which states,
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors.
If you've read up on the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," you
could also argue that Clinton's perjury qualifies as such. Alexander
Hamilton's Federalist paper No. 65 is useful.
http://www.c-span.org/guide/executive/investigation/federalist65.asp
Absolutely critical to the acceptance of the claim (in this case,
"Clinton should be impeached") is acceptance by the audience of your
underlying assumptions. To quote Ramage & Bean,
An _enthymeme_ is an incomplete logical structure that depends, for
its completeness, on one or more unstated assumptions (values,
beliefs, principles) that serve as the starting point of the
argument. The successful arguer, said Aristotle, is a person who
knows how to formulate and develop enthymemes so that the argument
is rooted in the audience's values and beliefs.
So what are some values, principles, and beliefs that your audience has
or will accept that you can launch your argument off of? Hmmmmm....
This question suggests an idea that, now that I think about it, is
encompassed in the Toulmin format. The idea is, argue for a principle,
and then show how that principle is violated by what you are arguing
against. In a different context: argue for a principle, and then show
how that principle is _met_ by what you're arguing _for_.
Some possibilities for principles you can use while arguing for
Clinton's impeachment appear in the following:
Principle: The chief of the law-enforcing/ executive branch of
government must *enforce* the law. The chief of the executive
branch may not commit felonies and thereafter be permitted to
remain in office.
Particular: Clinton repeatedly broke laws against perjury and witness
tampering, and broke laws against hiding subpoenaed evidence, all
of which are felonies.
Conclusion: in accordance with the above principle, Clinton must not be
permitted to remain in office.
Principle: The president's losing the trust of the American people over
public policy decisions doesn't make necessary his/her removal from
office; however, the president's losing the trust of the American
people over poor personal behavior decisions _does_ make necessary
his/her removal from office.
Particular: Clinton destroyed the trust of the American people through
his poor personal behavior decisions to repeatedly and brazenly lie
1) under oath in court, 2) during the forceful finger-wagging, and
3) under oath to Congress.
Conclusion: Clinton's removal from office has been made necessary.
Principle: a pattern of lying under oath to win a civil case is
unacceptable and should be punished with the appropriate punishment
for perjury in a civil case.
Particular: Clinton exhibited a pattern of lying under oath to win a
civil case.
Conclusion: Clinton should be punished with the appropriate punishment
for perjury in a civil case.
Principle: Nobody, not even the president, is above following the
important, valuable, worthy-of-enforcement laws against perjury.
Particular: Clinton broke that law.
Conclusion: Clinton is not above following the laws against perjury.
Principle: A president must possess the ability to differentiate between
truth and falsehood so he/she can make sound, rational, reasoned
decisions. If a president demonstrates by his words and deeds
while in office that he lacks this ability, he is unfit to continue
serving. Pathological liars believe their lies, and so lack the
ability to tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and so
are unfit to continue serving.
Particular: Clinton lacks the ability to tell the difference between
truth and falsehood, i.e., he is a pathological liar. By his
constant lying, even when repeatedly warned to not lie to the grand
jury, Clinton demonstrates that he is a pathological liar. As
another example, Clinton said yesterday and the day before
yesterday that he believes he didn't commit perjury.
Conclusion: Clinton is unfit to remain president.
Principle: It's unfair and unbecoming for a big cheese to illegally take
away from a virtual nobody her right to a fair shake in the courts.
Particular: the big cheese Clinton took from Paula Jones her right to a
fair shake in the courts by his perjury, obstruction of justice,
and witness tampering.
Conclusion: Clinton acted in an unfair and unbecoming manner in matters
surrounding the Paula Jones case.
Principle: We want to avoid setting bad precedents. Letting public
officials get away with committing felonies would be setting a bad
precedent.
Particular: It would be a bad precedent to allow Clinton to get away
with committing felonies.
Conclusion: We should avoid setting a bad precedent by allowing Clinton,
a public official, to get away with his perjury and obstruction of
justice felonies.
CONDITIONS OF REBUTTAL: Now, under what conditions does the claim that
Clinton should be impeached not hold true? What can an opponent say to
attack the grounds and/or attack the warrant's backing? Hmmmmmmm....
Perhaps they could say "Clinton's lying under oath in a sexual
harassment suit is justified because everybody lies about sex." Or
"Clinton's perjury about sex in a sexual harassment suit is justifiable
because he did it to preserve his reputation from degradation and family
from embarrassment." I'll let you produce some more claims made on
behalf of Clinton and produce some comments refuting-- if possible-- all
of them. Before the counterarguments are introduced by the person
you're trying to persuade, try to concede what you feel must be
conceded.
QUALIFIER: "words or phrases limiting the force of your claim" You
don't want your claims to be overly strong. To illustrate, it's too
strong to say "Clinton is most assuredly a pathological liar." Better:
"Judging by Clinton's constant lying about matters big and small, and
judging by the just-described examples about which it's reported that he
believes those lies of his, it's very likely that he's a pathological
liar."
jhmcclo...@my-dejanews.com
set forth very briefly
with examples adapted to the meanest intelligence
(1) There is a great gulf between theory and practice. And besides, you
can't seriously think there's anybody on YOUR side sophisticated enough to
deploy such weaponry as you hawk to all and sundry.
(2) As a piece of literature, your article reminds of "feminist algebra" and
especially of a marvellous math textbook written before the Civil War for the
use of Dixie, where all the word problems were about Yankees selling wooden
nutmegs or running away from the battle of Buena Vista. No doubt the
instructional content was sound enough, but perhaps that wasn't quite the
point. (I'd seek out the reference, but QUA Clintonista, I don't need
references, I just follow my Leader and believe whatever I like and call it
"truth." Such is Dr. Limbaugh's axiomatic definition of Postmodernism, and
I'm one of it. It's a whole lot easier than all that complicated stuff of
yours.)
(3) And so we have arrived at the current Civil War by a process anything but
argumentatively correct:
Avert the advent of Al Gore,
Let Clinton reign in Baltimore!
Arise for sanity once more,
Maryland, my Maryland! // with CC: to C.V.
--
Cordially,
J. H. McCloskey
=== ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ===
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Superdave the Wonderchemist
: I recently came across a way of forming one's own arguments and
: understanding other's arguments. Using the method should help bring
: increased clarity to your arguing with others and to your thoughts. If
: you debate topics such as gun control, the death penalty, abortion,
: euthanasia, and the legalization of drugs, this post should prove
: useful, an earlier version of which was posted under the title "Arguing
: For Impeachment."
<brilliant post snipped for brevity>
It is interesting to note that individuals who have used reason, logic,
and critical thinking to define their views generally support the notion
that Clinton should be impeached and put on trial in the Senate. The
arguments to the contrary generally center around peer pressure, "look at
the polls!" or fearmongering, "no, you can't send it to the Senate, it
would tie up the government for months!" Here is a bit of 2500 year-old
wisdom:
Proverbs 14:16
The simple believes
every word, but the pru-
dent considers well his
steps.
(had to trim a couple newsgroups because my server denies their existence)
--
--"The gods do not deduct from man's allotted span the hours
spent in fishing." -- Babylonian proverb
-Superdave The Wonderchemist
(an inside joke)
Theoretical Chemistry Grad student (read slave)
NDSU Fargo, ND (read middle of nowhere)
Disclaimer:
I speak for no one but myself unless I am wrong, then I speak
on behalf of someone else. (read whatever)
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
John Simutis
: would tie up the government for months!" Here is a bit of 2500 year-old
: wisdom:
: Proverbs 14:16
: The simple believes
: every word, but the pru-
: dent considers well his
: steps.
: (had to trim a couple newsgroups because my server denies their existence)
And a companion piece:
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become
sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office.--Psalm 109:7-8
--
John Simutis sim...@ccnet.com
122 degrees West Longitude, 38 degrees North Latitude
-- unless the North American Plate slips bigtime ...
Oracle
>
> It is interesting to note that individuals who have used reason, logic,
> and critical thinking to define their views generally support the notion
> that Clinton should be impeached and put on trial in the Senate.
Of course anyone who belives Clinton should be impeached has a somewhat
less than firm grasp of reality. To such a person, the definition of
"reason, logic, and critical thinking" may very well be, to say the
least, creative.
Superdave the Wonderchemist
: Superdave the Wonderchemist wrote:
: >
: > It is interesting to note that individuals who have used reason, logic,
: > and critical thinking to define their views generally support the notion
: Of course anyone who belives Clinton should be impeached has a somewhat
: less than firm grasp of reality. To such a person, the definition of
: "reason, logic, and critical thinking" may very well be, to say the
: least, creative.
Ah, instant ad hominem attack. The spin machine from the White House
appears to be winding down. This is all that is left.
david ford
Strawman Defence
"Rebuttal'"s Saying of What's Impeachable
Overturning an Election Defence
Jeopardize Executive Branch Defence
In the 8 Dec 1998 White House Rebuttal to the Starr report, Clinton's
lawyers attack a strawman in defence of their client. They say that a
nebulous "inappropriate intimate relationship" was wrong, immoral even.
Some apposite extracts from the Preface and Introduction:
....the President has asked us to convey a personal note: What the
President did was wrong. As the President himself has said,
publicly and painfully, "there is no fancy way to say that I have
sinned." ....in fact he explicitly acknowledged to the grand jury
both that he had had an inappropriate intimate relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky and that he had been alone with her.
Still being somewhat vague, they further state again and again that what
Clinton did is not an impeachable offense.
They thus cleverly set up as a strawman the claim 'Clinton's immoral
actions deserve impeachment' before attacking it, even as the matters at
issue are not sexual conduct, but commission of perjury in a civil
deposition & to a grand jury & to Congress, obstruction of justice by
getting a perjurious affidavit executed and allowing its presentation in
court, and witness tampering with Betty Currie. I hope that you do not
accept Clinton's lawyer's attack on a strawman as a worthy-of-acceptance
defence of his felonies.
These very real issues are felonies and are clearly worthy of impeaching
over. To illustrate, consider these extracts from the Clinton team's
own "Rebuttal":
The English cases included misappropriation of public funds,
interfering in elections, accepting bribes, and various forms of
corruption. Ibid. These offenses all affected the discharge of
public duties by public officials. In short, under the English
practice, "the critical element of injury in an impeachable offense
was injury to the state."
Done. The offenses currently before the House of Representatives "all
affected the discharge of public duties by public officials,"
specifically, the discharge of public duties by Clinton, the head of the
Executive Branch. Just as giving & receiving bribes constitute "forms
of corruption," so do Clinton's committing perjury and obstructing
justice.
They [the Framers] believed, in short, that impeachment "reached
offenses against the government, and especially abuses of
constitutional duties."
Done. Clinton committed offenses against the Judicial Branch of
government, and concomitantly abused his constitutional duty to uphold
the law by breaking the law, all so he could win a sexual harassment
lawsuit.
....that solemn process [of impeachment], in Justice Story's words,
addresses "offenses which are committed by public men in violation
of their public trust and duties."
Done. Upholding the law is a duty of the President; the American people
generally trust their Chief Executive to uphold the law. As president,
Clinton didn't do his duty to uphold the perjury laws, and I for one
don't trust him whenever he or his Administration says just about
*anything*. He's demonstrated that he's that much of a liar.
Now, about the claim that impeaching & removing Clinton from office
would overturn an election. Clinton's lawyers make this incorrect claim
in their rebuttal's Preface:
Neither should the [House Judiciary] Committee ignore the high
standards of the Constitution to overturn a national election and
to impeach a President.
However, the Clinton-*Gore* ticket was nationally chosen in 1996. To
quote from the rebuttal's Section IV, B,
....affirmative votes on articles of impeachment jeopardize an
entire branch of our national government and threaten the political
viability of the single person (except for the Vice President)
elected by the entire electorate.
If Clinton is removed, Dole & Kemp will not become president & VP,
respectively. Nor will simply Dole become president. Rather, Gore--
who, like Clinton, was nationally elected-- *will* become president.
Should Clinton be removed, Gore will be Prez, and that's a far cry from
"overturn[ing] a national election."
Regarding the Rebuttal's claim that pro-impeachment votes would
"jeopardize an entire branch of our national government": this is
hogwash. Life will go on in the Executive Branch should Clinton's case
be tried in the Senate; the bureaucracy is too well-oiled to let a trial
of Clinton get in the way of its operation. The Executive Branch will
still exist when Clinton leaves office through expiration of his term or
through removal. The Executive Branch can eventually be restored to
full power with an honest & strong leader as president, to be contrasted
with the constantly-dissembling, focused on chasing-women and staying-
out-of-legal-trouble, dishonest, corrupt president we currently have.
The 8 Dec 1998 Rebuttal is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/wh
text120898f.htm
david ford
"perjury and obstruction are acceptable when about sex life"
defenses offered on behalf of the president.
Regarding the oft-heard claim that Clinton was surprised by the Paula
Jones lawyers, and that this somehow justifies his committing perjury in
his 17 Jan 1998 testimony:
I will grant that perhaps Clinton was surprised by the fact that the
Lewinsky questions were asked. He may have expected Lewinsky's
perjurious affidavit to make unnecessary his having to testify as to the
extent of his relationship with Lewinsky, and when it didn't work--
despite Bennett's best efforts-- and Judge Wright allowed that line of
questioning to continue,[A] perhaps he was surprised that the questions
were asked.
However, he couldn't have been surprised about the nature of the
questions: Lewinsky was on the witness list and Judge Susan Wright
permitted the Jones lawyers to question Clinton about his relationships
with federal employees, and Clinton had known all of this for over a
month before 17 January. He also knew the Paula Jones team was
inquiring about specific gifts over 1 month before he was questioned
under oath about gifts. Should Lewinsky's perjurious affidavit not
prevent questioning of Clinton about Lewinsky, Clinton was prepared to
and did lie through his teeth about the nature of his relationship with
her. In short, Clinton knew the type of questions that might be asked,
and when those questions were permitted, he replied with prepared lies.
This is not a case of being put on the spot and in the turmoil of the
moment, giving a lie that necessitated further lies. Oh nooooo.
Clinton's giving of prepared lies is even more apparent in the case of
his testimony before the grand jury, where he had 7 months to think
before he repeated his prepared 17 January lies for a 2nd time under
oath, and in the case of his replies to the 81 Questions, where he had
even more time.
Now, about the claim that Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice
are acceptable because they were about his personal life:
1st point: Clinton didn't have to answer those embarrassing questions.
Instead of perjuring himself, he could have simply pleaded the Fifth.
Pleading the Fifth would have obviated the need to make Currie's
thoughts consonant with perjurious testimony. Instead of getting a
perjurious affidavit out of Lewinsky, and permitting that affidavit to
be presented on his behalf in court, and instead of making sure that
subpoenaed gifts were not handed over, Clinton could have permitted the
Paula Jones lawyers to proceed unimpeded.
True, if the story of his affair leaked, his reputation as a philanderer
would have grown, and Hillary and Chelsea and possibly himself would
have been embarrassed. However, judging by his philandering behavior
even while president, Clinton has little regard for the feelings of his
wife and child, and judging by his phony displays of contriteness only
when forced to do so by circumstance, he has little capacity for
experiencing embarrassment. I do not believe for one minute that the
man is sorry for lying-- not "misleading"-- *lying*, to the American
public and his family, as he claims he is. If he were truly sorry, he'd
do the honorable thing and step down. But the man has no honor, has no
shame, and is not truly sorry.
2nd point: this was a sexual harassment suit. Allegations of sexual
harassment would be difficult to prove if they were limited to 'he said
it didn't happen, she said it did.' But they're not. It's my
understanding that sexual harassment law permits the search for a
pattern of harassment and other accompanying actions by the defendant.
This necessitates answering possibly-embarrassing questions about prior
sexual activities. If Clinton is permitted to get away with his
concealing-- while under oath and through obstructing justice--
concealing his affair with the intern Lewinsky, his getting away will
occur to the detriment of sexual harassment law.
In the Paula Jones lawsuit, a search was made for a pattern of assisting
with jobs and other benefits those that acceded to Clinton's sexual
advances, while in contrast, those under his employ that rebuffed him
were denied benefits. Jones believed the latter occurred in her case;
to illustrate, here are some sections of her 6 May 1994 complaint:
17. A few minutes of small talk ensued, which included asking
Jones about her job. Clinton told Jones that Dave Harrington is
"my good friend." On May 8, 1991, David Harrington was Director of
the AIDC, having been appointed to that post by Governor Clinton.
Harrington was Jones' ultimate superior within the AIDC.
24. Clinton, while fondling his penis said: "Well, I don't want to
make you do anything you don't want to do." Clinton then stood up
and pulled up his pants and said: "If you get in trouble for
leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of
it." As Jones left the room Clinton looked sternly at Jones and
said: "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."
25. Jones believed "Dave" to be the same David Harrington, of whom
Clinton previously referred. Clinton, by his comments about
Harrington to Jones, affirmed that he had control over Jones'
employment, and that he was willing to use that power. Jones
became fearful that her refusal to succumb to Clinton's advances
could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment.
39. Jones continued to work at AIDC even though she was in
constant fear that Governor Clinton might take retaliatory action
against her because of her rejection of his abhorrent sexual
advances. Her enjoyment of her work was severely diminished. In
fact, she was treated in a hostile and rude manner by certain
superiors in AIDC. This rude conduct had not happened prior to her
encounter with Clinton. Further, after her maternity leave she was
transferred to a position which had no responsible duties for which
she could be adequately evaluated to earn advancement. The reason
given to her by her superiors for the transfer was that her
previous position had been eliminated. This reason was untrue
since her former position was not abolished. It was a pretext for
the real reason which was that she was being punished for her
rejection of the various advances made by Clinton described above.
In addition, the job in which she was placed called for a higher
grade and pay, yet she was not paid more money than she received in
her previous position. Although other employees received merit
increases, Jones never received a raise beyond a cost of living
increase.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/
complaint.htm]
Paula Jones was pursuing a sexual harassment case against Clinton. Had
Clinton's 17 Jan 1998 answers in response to the Lewinsky questions been
truthful, they would have helped Paula Jones's case in exhibiting the
following parallels:
1. (a) Clinton had sexual interaction with Lewinsky, whom he knew to
be a subordinate state employee.
(b) Clinton requested sexual interaction from Jones, whom he knew to
be a subordinate state employee.
2. (a) Clinton requested Lewinsky to perform oral sex on him on
numerous times. They never had intercourse; apparently Clinton had a
marked preference for oral sex.
(b) Clinton requested Jones to perform oral sex on him.
Also, if as a result of her relationship with Clinton, intern Lewinsky
had received jobs or better pay (say, e.g., a paying White House job),
that would have bolstered Jones's theory that those giving in to
Clinton's advances were rewarded employment-wise. As it was, Lewinsky
got a job as a result of her sexual relationship with Clinton, but that
was to ensure her silence about the relationship during the lawsuit
proceedings.
Which brings up another point. Clinton was constantly working to delay
the trial date, even going all the way to the Supreme Court. Instead of
going to trial to clear his reputation from Paula Jones's charges,
Clinton chose the path of delay, even as he ran up large legal bills
making all his appeals. He didn't even want depositions being taken
while he was in office for later use in a trial after he left office; if
he had gotten his way on this matter of when to take depositions,
memories would have become even more faded and garbled with the extra
passage of time.
Clinton's use of jobs to keep Lewinsky silent was a (illegal) part of
his pattern of trying to prevent Paula Jones from discovering evidence
helpful to her case. Clinton's path of delay, and the perjury &
obstruction of justice with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky, is
to my mind an indication that Clinton thought he might lose in court. I
thus concur with the Jones team when they observe,
Evidence that a party or his agents have attempted to conceal or
corrupt evidence, commit or suborn perjury, tamper with witnesses,
or obstruct justice is admissible against that party and gives rise
to an inference that his entire case is weak and unfounded. See
McQueeney v. .... This rule has been recognized and enforced in
the Eighth Circuit. Martin v. .... Great Am. Ins. Co. v. ....
See also Favors v. .... The leading commentators also recognize
this rule. See.... [B]
In the following, the Jones team eloquently state the principle that
perjury & obstruction in a proceeding suggests the possession of a weak
case:
It has always been understood -- the inference, indeed, is one of
the simplest in human experience -- that a party's falsehood or
other fraud in the presentation of his cause, his fabrication or
suppression of evidence by bribery or spoliation, and all similar
conduct is receivable against him as an indication that his case is
a weak or unfounded one; and from that consciousness may be
inferred the fact itself of the cause's lack of truth or merit.[B]
It seems to me that Clinton's illegal perjury and obstruction helped
prevent Paula Jones-- a fellow citizen-- from getting at fair shake in
the courts. Should a congressperson vote for the civil-deposition-
perjury and obstruction articles, to their constituents they could
perhaps present those votes as an affirmation of sexual harassment law
and notions of fairness.
Sources.
A. Clinton's 17 January 1998 deposition,
http://www-wp7.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/cl
intondep031398.htm
B. Paula Jones's 30 July 1998 appeal of the summary judgement decision,
released 31 July 1998,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jo
nesappeal073198.htm
Stuart Taylor, Jr., wrote the interesting article "Paula Jones's Case
Against Clinton" _The American Lawyer_ (Nov 1996),
http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/government/jones/staylor.html
The summary:
Millions of Clinton supporters still disdain Clarence Thomas as a
sexual harasser. But a comparison of the Paula Jones and Anita
Hill episodes suggests that the evidence against the president is
far stronger than the media has let on--and far stronger than the
evidence against Thomas.
Miguel A. Lerma
: This post looks at the "Clinton was surprised" and
: "perjury and obstruction are acceptable when about sex life"
: defenses offered on behalf of the president.
In my opinion there seems to be a serious confusion about the nature
of sexual harassment. The wrong thing in "sexual harassment" is not
sex, it is _harassment_, so it makes no sense to dig in the sexual
past of the defendant. The right questions should be about past
behavior of harassment - sexual or not. The only one harassed in all
this matter is the President. His opponents have spent 40 million tax
dollars to prove that he lied in something as irrelevant as asking if
he has ever sneezed in the oval office.
Obstruction of justice? What justice? The persecution of Clinton has
nothing to do with justice, it is a political maneuver to remove from
office a President elected and supported by a majority of American people.
Perjury? Who knows? Maybe a wrong answer to a wrong question.
Anybody interested in real justice would insist in going back,
invalidate the question and ask the right one: "has you ever
_harassed_ Miss Lewinsky?"
Miguel A. Lerma
The National Credibility Bureau Inc
Miguel A. Lerma wrote in message <75e0bc$n...@news.acns.nwu.edu>...
>david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
>: This post looks at the "Clinton was surprised" and
>: "perjury and obstruction are acceptable when about sex life"
>: defenses offered on behalf of the president.
>
>In my opinion there seems to be a serious confusion about the nature
>of sexual harassment. The wrong thing in "sexual harassment" is not
>sex, it is _harassment_, so it makes no sense to dig in the sexual
>past of the defendant.
>Miguel A. Lerma
>
Jiminey Christmas, where have you been. It was Clinton that got the damn law
about previous sexual encounters passed and signed the damn thing into law.
Wake up. Do you think the womens groups like him because he is from Arkansas
or something?
I know, I know. You're not a lawyer, but
you play one on the internet.
Throughout the course of human events
members of the human race have continuously
strived to put their feet in their mouths. We
take it as our duty to point these events out in
the sincere hope that one will learn that it is
really us against them, not Republicans vs
Democrats. Politicians are like the World
Wrestling Federation, when the match ends
they all go to dinner together. The difference
being, who's buying the dinner. Us!
The National Credibility Bureau Inc.
Home of The Dream Team 2000
Bradley/McCain
Hendrickson
>
> david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
> : This post looks at the "Clinton was surprised" and
> : "perjury and obstruction are acceptable when about sex life"
> : defenses offered on behalf of the president.
>
> In my opinion there seems to be a serious confusion about the nature
> of sexual harassment. The wrong thing in "sexual harassment" is not
> sex, it is _harassment_, so it makes no sense to dig in the sexual
> behavior of harassment - sexual or not. The only one harassed in all
> this matter is the President. His opponents have spent 40 million tax
> dollars to prove that he lied in something as irrelevant as asking if
> he has ever sneezed in the oval office.
>
> Obstruction of justice? What justice? The persecution of Clinton has
> nothing to do with justice, it is a political maneuver to remove from
> office a President elected and supported by a majority of American people.
Ahem. Clinton has NEVER been "elected by a majority of the American
people".
That he is "supported by a majority of the American people" is highly
questionable at best.
Nice try.
john q public
chooses the president. .
Definition
1. The greater part of a larger number;more than half
2. the excess of the larger number of votes cast for one candidate, bill,
ect. over all the rest of the votes
you figure it out!
Hendrickson wrote in message <367ACB7D...@ais.net>...
>Miguel A. Lerma wrote:
>>
>> david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
>> : This post looks at the "Clinton was surprised" and
>> : "perjury and obstruction are acceptable when about sex life"
>> : defenses offered on behalf of the president.