Machiavelli Wrote:JUST FOR THE RECORD.....................


Clinton had the three definitions of sexual contact given to him. His attorney's whittled the definition of sex down to sexual intercourse because the other two criteria were too vague. So by the letter of the LAW Clinton never perjured himself. I am aware he came out and said he misled the nation on Lewinsky. Wasn't totally truthful. He shouldn't of had. He never lied to the rule of law.

the rule of law disbarred him. this means they banned him from practicing law, hmm?

I get so sick of defending this. This is THE EXACT reason I don't want anything to do with Hillary. Too much to defend. I have a feeling you guy's will feel the same about Bush when Jeb wants to run. Just like Clinton, Bush has done some serious damage to the GOP. It's almost Nixonian. At least Clinton went out in the 60's. Something your boy W will NEVER see again.

OUGwave Wrote:

Quote:In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argued, "might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the Court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrinsic evidence that could be inadmissable under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would have required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue delay that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinsky matter, and the government's criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case. Id. at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was "not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. at 1222 (emphasis in original).

Much like the Libby case, no?

Nice try, but no.

Libby was tried for purjury relating to something that wasn't even a crime. Sexual harassment is a crime. And the judge pointed out, the statement wasn't immaterial to the case, but that Lewinsky wasn't essential to proving if she was sexually harassed.

You were wrong, it's ok. It happens to everyone from time to time. They key is accept it and move on, not deflect it with more lame comparisons that don't even apply.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

Quote:In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argued, "might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the Court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrinsic evidence that could be inadmissable under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would have required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue delay that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinsky matter, and the government's criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case. Id. at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was "not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. at 1222 (emphasis in original).

Much like the Libby case, no?

Nice try, but no.

Libby was tried for purjury relating to something that wasn't even a crime. Sexual harassment is a crime. And the judge pointed out, the statement wasn't immaterial to the case, but that Lewinsky wasn't essential to proving if she was sexually harassed.

You were wrong, it's ok. It happens to everyone from time to time. They key is accept it and move on, not deflect it with more lame comparisons that don't even apply.

Sexual harassment is a criminal offense, huh? What state is that in, besides your state of delusion? Thats the problem with the jails today, right... they are full of sexual harassment offenders...

It wasn't even a criminal case, smartass.

OUGwave Wrote:Sexual harassment is a criminal offense, huh? What state is that in, besides your state of delusion? Thats the problem with the jails today, right... they are full of sexual harassment offenders...

LOL! You are right, my mistake. (see how easy that was? See when you're an adult and don't fancy yourself smarter than everyone around you, you can admit to being incorrect about something.)

Quote:It wasn't even a criminal case, smartass.

Oooo, the smartest kid in class gets testy when he's wrong. Temper, temper junior.

Like I said everyone is wrong from time to time. Clearly you're just not capable of dealing with it. Kind of sad really.

BTW, you can be arrested for sexual harassment. There are various activities that fall under the term. Just ask Christian Slater

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Sexual harassment is a criminal offense, huh? What state is that in, besides your state of delusion? Thats the problem with the jails today, right... they are full of sexual harassment offenders...

LOL! You are right, my mistake. (see how easy that was? See when you're an adult and don't fancy yourself smarter than everyone around you, you can admit to being incorrect about something.)

Quote:It wasn't even a criminal case, smartass.

Oooo, the smartest kid in class gets testy when he's wrong. Temper, temper junior.

Like I said everyone is wrong from time to time. Clearly you're just not capable of dealing with it. Kind of sad really.

BTW, you can be arrested for sexual harassment. There are various activities that fall under the term. Just ask Christian Slater

Clearly the headline writers at CNN did you and your google search a favor, but Slater was arrested because he sexually assaulted someone while intoxicated. Sexual harassment is a misnomer in this case.

And regarding this "smartest kid in the class" nonsense, at least point to one example of me "thinking I'm smarter than anyone else"...

I don't really get it anyway... am I supposed to sandbag the argument? All I do is debate the issues like everyone else -- if you interpret that as showing how smart I am, what am I supposed to do?

And whats with the "junior" stuff -- I mean, I know its meant to be condescending for some reason, but you really know very little about me.

I never personally attacked you or said anything meant to demean your character or condescend to you personally before you started with this tone. I think its immature, at the least, and actually does make you look a little insecure or at least insecure in your argument.

Its a bit over the top, I think. While I expect it from GGNiner and some others, I actually saw you as more of the William F. Buckley to their Hannity/Limbaugh -- but then again, contrary to your assertion, I can admit being wrong.

---edited

Gonzalez is a pathetic attorney general. Because of his cooperation with his buddy George Bush, 2 border agents are roting in solitary confinement for trying to do their job and stop illegals from bringing Mexicans and drugs into this country illegally. Bush puts his interest before the interest of the country by hiring his pals who are also open borders types. Bush puts his own economic interest above the interest of the country. Although the dems are the front runners of immorality, Bush and the republicans really aren't far behind. These people in our government (except for a few) have all become a bunch of self-serving thugs. I'm glad the dems are beating up on Bush. I have no doubt there are plenty of skelatons buried in the Bush White House.

Machiavelli Wrote:JUST FOR THE RECORD.....................


Clinton had the three definitions of sexual contact given to him. His attorney's whittled the definition of sex down to sexual intercourse because the other two criteria were too vague. So by the letter of the LAW Clinton never perjured himself. I am aware he came out and said he misled the nation on Lewinsky. Wasn't totally truthful. He shouldn't of had. He never lied to the rule of law.

Why don't you run that by one of your jr. high or high school biology classes and see if they agree with you.

OUGwave Wrote:Clearly the headline writers at CNN did you and your google search a favor, but Slater was arrested because he sexually assaulted someone while intoxicated. Sexual harassment is a misnomer in this case.

Actually it was yahoo, but that's beside the point. The point is that sexual harassment is a broad term for many different behaviors, some of which are criminal.

Quote:And regarding this "smartest kid in the class" nonsense, at least point to one example of me "thinking I'm smarter than anyone else"...

You've never said it, if you did I would just laugh at you and move on. It's what you say (or type) that potrays you as pompous and full of yourself. Buffering your statements with things like, "it's a simple argument," or "it's not a complicated argument" or "you may want to read about it in the newspaper sometime." or "That would be pretty convenient for you, but no" etc. You love to assert your self conceived superiority over the person you are debating with using gems like those. I simply have a little fun at your expense for it.

And note I fully realize you will neither accept my interpretation of these comments nor acknowledge that you even do anything wrong. So spare me a long winded defense of yourself as we will not agree about it anyway. A simple "no I don't" will suffice.

Quote:I don't really get it anyway... am I supposed to sandbag the argument? All I do is debate the issues like everyone else

That's not allyou do.

Quote:I never personally attacked you or said anything meant to demean your character or condescend to you personally before you started with this tone. I think its immature, at the least, and actually does make you look a little insecure or at least insecure in your argument.

LOL! The old insecure line again. Yeah that's it, I find you so intimidating that I have to hide it behind being condescending to you.

Quote:Its a bit over the top, I think. While I expect it from GGNiner and some others, I actually saw you as more of the William F. Buckley to their Hannity/Limbaugh -- but then again, contrary to your assertion, I can admit being wrong.

I think I've made it pretty clear I can converse with you on any topic you would like to discuss and hold my own just fine. However I find the pompous tone you take in your posts to be fodder to have a little fun, not unlike the tact you like to take with GG and some others. You obviously think they are somehow beneath you on here, ergo your free wheeling condescension towards them. And as you've so wonderfully shown in your last two posts, you don't like it when the tables are turned.

In any case I've made the point I wanted to. You may have the last word in this matter. Enjoy.

So Gonzales approved the firings. Even though he told the congressional commitee he wasn't involved. Why lie if everything is on the up and up. Why not just come out and say we fired them because they weren't loyal Bushie's.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070324/D8O2H7S00.html