N.Y. Orangeman Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 All he has to do is say "I don't remember" to every question asked him. It worked for Hillary with the Rose Law Firm records. 489506[/snapback] Great...another Clinton reference. We didn't see that coming.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Great...another Clinton reference. We didn't see that coming.. 489729[/snapback] Why the hell not? A special prosecutor hunts until he finds something, thus embarrassing the incumbent. Only difference here is: it's not the president directly (yet. I'm sure they're working on that), and the lies they're accused of telling were at the very least peripherally related to the investigation (because what the hell did shtuping a White House intern have to do with Whitewater anyway? Why would Starr even ask? At least Fitz is staying on topic...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Why the hell not? A special prosecutor hunts until he finds something, thus embarrassing the incumbent. Only difference here is: it's not the president directly (yet. I'm sure they're working on that), and the lies they're accused of telling were at the very least peripherally related to the investigation (because what the hell did shtuping a White House intern have to do with Whitewater anyway? Why would Starr even ask? At least Fitz is staying on topic...) 489768[/snapback] Starr didn't ask, Jones' lawyers did already knowing the answer because they already knew about Tripp's tapes and actually violated disclosure rules by not revealing the info to the President's lawyers before his deposition. You see, if Clinton knew they had the goods on him, he wouldn't have lied about it and they wouldn't have had the perjury charge to hand to Starr which was the whole point of the exercise. Its called a "perjury trap". The line between Starr and Jone's lawyers was a bit blurry. It certainly was irrelevant to the Whitewater thing and in fact, was ruled to be irrelevant in the Jones case as well. In other words, they could have objected to the question as irrelevant and it would have been sustained but to demonstrate its irrelevancy, they would have had to admit the affair and show that it was consensual. Politically, he wasn't prepared to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Starr didn't ask, Jones' lawyers did already knowing the answer because they already knew about Tripp's tapes and actually violated disclosure rules by not revealing the info to the President's lawyers before his deposition. You see, if Clinton knew they had the goods on him, he wouldn't have lied about it and they wouldn't have had the perjury charge to hand to Starr which was the whole point of the exercise. Its called a "perjury trap". The line between Starr and Jone's lawyers was a bit blurry. It certainly was irrelevant to the Whitewater thing and in fact, was ruled to be irrelevant in the Jones case as well. In other words, they could have objected to the question as irrelevant and it would have been sustained but to demonstrate its irrelevancy, they would have had to admit the affair and show that it was consensual. Politically, he wasn't prepared to do that. 489805[/snapback] That's !@#$ing whacked. sh-- like that's the main reason I'd never want to be president. We live in a country that laughs at the kings and worships the court jesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited. She worked at the CIA. Her neighbors knew that. Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties. 489290[/snapback] Absolutely Untrue! If you'd like to back up that statement please provide a link. Here's mine refuting this statement. Neighbors and friends, although floored by her dual identity, say Plame remains the same caring friend and conscientious mother she was before her cover was blown. http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...date=10/30/2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I totally agree, and it's an often wrongly understood and made distinction. But please answer these two questions for me: 1. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that OJ Simspon is guilty of killing two people? 2. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that OJ Simspon is guilty under the law of killing two people? My own answers to those questions would be: 1. Yes, I think he is guilty of killing two people. 2. No, I think he is not guilty under the law of killing two people because the prosecution didn't prove its case. People can say that he is guilty because of the civil case, but to me that is not the determining factor, the governments case is. 489690[/snapback] 1. As much as it pains me to say so, being a fan of the Naked Gun movies, YES. 2. Criminal law, no - I don't think a reasonable person could have voted him guilty with the evidence presented. Civil law, absolutely. The 2 are distinct, and if someone feels better knowing he lost the civil case, so be it. Me, I don't really give much of a rat's butt about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 1. As much as it pains me to say so, being a fan of the Naked Gun movies, YES.2. Criminal law, no - I don't think a reasonable person could have voted him guilty with the evidence presented. Civil law, absolutely. The 2 are distinct, and if someone feels better knowing he lost the civil case, so be it. Me, I don't really give much of a rat's butt about him. 491286[/snapback] Thank you. You can have an opinion about whether a man is guilty before or after "he is innocent until proven guilty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Thank you. You can have an opinion about whether a man is guilty before or after "he is innocent until proven guilty." 491294[/snapback] Kelly, You're welcome. But, I think you have me confused with Jim Bob. I was not arguing with you about that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Kelly, You're welcome. But, I think you have me confused with Jim Bob. I was not arguing with you about that issue. 491314[/snapback] No, I knew the distinction. I was just thanking you for having simple common sense. I see so little of that around here, and I greatly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Why the hell not? A special prosecutor hunts until he finds something, thus embarrassing the incumbent. Only difference here is: it's not the president directly (yet. I'm sure they're working on that), and the lies they're accused of telling were at the very least peripherally related to the investigation (because what the hell did shtuping a White House intern have to do with Whitewater anyway? Why would Starr even ask? At least Fitz is staying on topic...) 489768[/snapback] I was only commenting on the fact that every time Bush is criticized, instead of making a point on the issue at hand, he brings up the Clinton administration. I have mixed emotions, both on a theoretical and a pragmatic, on the use of special prosecutors. What I will say is that perjury and obstruction of justice charges, regardless of their relationship to the charter of the prosecutor, should not be dismissed easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 You see, if Clinton knew they had the goods on him, he wouldn't have lied about it and they wouldn't have had the perjury charge to hand to Starr which was the whole point of the exercise. 489805[/snapback] So, he only willfully broke the law because he thought he could get away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So, he only willfully broke the law because he thought he could get away with it? 491459[/snapback] You can say that. Who wouldn't? Easier for people like yourself to preach. You would be no different Mr. President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 You can say that. Who wouldn't? Easier for people like yourself to preach. You would be no different Mr. President. 491584[/snapback] Do you always need to resort to slander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts