An Impeachment Analysis

[Navy Pride]

A civil court case does not involve felonies, it's simply an attempt for the plaintiff to make some money. A person found guilty in a civil trial is not guilty of any felony.

Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath which is perjury which is why he why he lost his law license and was impeached........

 

[Hoot]

Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath which is perjury which is why he why he lost his law license and was impeached........

To quote Homer Simpson..."Doh!"

 

[Navy Pride]

To quote Homer Simpson..."Doh!"

You a big fan of Homer huh? that figures........:roll:

 

[Hoot]

You a big fan of Homer huh? that figures........:roll:

Sorry Navy, I didn't mean to be rude, but my whole argument was that presidents should not be subjected to civil lawsuits while in office.

Of course, everything you typed in your 2nd to last post is accurate, but my contention is...no president should ever be placed in that position. Of course Clinton committed perjury and I'm not happy about him pulling such a Homeresque stunt, but if the civil lawsuit had been delayed, Clinton never would've been stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I was so mad that they could do this to any president, while he has more important things to worry about, that I swore I would never vote republican again. I was disgusted by the right wings fanatical lust for power at any expense to our nation.

And yeah, at least when I watch The Simpsons it usually makes me laugh. Not too many shows on the boob tube that I can say that about consistently.

 

[cnredd]

Sorry Navy, I didn't mean to be rude, but my whole argument was that presidents should not be subjected to civil lawsuits while in office.

Of course, everything you typed in your 2nd to last post is accurate, but my contention is...no president should ever be placed in that position. Of course Clinton committed perjury and I'm not happy about him pulling such a Homeresque stunt, but if the civil lawsuit had been delayed, Clinton never would've been stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I was so mad that they could do this to any president, while he has more important things to worry about, that I swore I would never vote republican again. I was disgusted by the right wings fanatical lust for power at any expense to our nation.

And yeah, at least when I watch The Simpsons it usually makes me laugh. Not too many shows on the boob tube that I can say that about consistently.

Here is the actual case you're referring to...

CLINTON v. JONES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
No. 95-1853. Argued January 13, 1997 -- Decided May 27, 1997


Respondent sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Arkansas law to recover damages from petitioner, the current President of the United States, alleging, inter alia, that while he was Governor of Arkansas, petitioner made "abhorrent" sexual advances to her, and that her rejection of those advances led to punishment by her supervisors in the state job she held at the time. Petitioner promptly advised the Federal District Court that he would file a motion to dismiss on Presidential immunity grounds, and requested that all other pleadings and motions be deferred until the immunity issue was resolved. After the court granted that request, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to toll any applicable statutes of limitation during his Presidency. The District Judge denied dismissal on immunity grounds and ruled that discovery could go forward, but ordered any trial stayed until petitioner's Presidency ended. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial, but reversed the trial postponement as the "functional equivalent" of a grant of temporary immunity to which petitioner was not constitutionally entitled. The court explained that the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue. The court also rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch would violate separation of powers.

(b) The separation of powers doctrine does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office. Even accepting the unique importance of the Presidency in the constitutional scheme, it does not follow that that doctrine would be violated by allowing this action to proceed. The doctrine provides a self executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the three co equal branches of Government at the expense of another. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122. But in this case there is no suggestion that the Federal Judiciary is being asked to perform any function that might in some way be described as "executive." Respondent is merely asking the courts to exercise their core Article III jurisdiction to decide cases and controversies, and, whatever the outcome, there is no possibility that the decision here will curtail the scope of the Executive Branch's official powers.

How dare they...:roll:

 

[Stinger]

I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'd like to remind all of you that this was the first time in history that a civil court case was allowed to proceed against a sitting president. ( Paula Jones v Clinton)

It was the first time it was ever necessary thanks to Bill Clinton.

Had the USSC not made such a stupid decision...a decision that they had previously never allowed to happen,

When had they ever not let it happen?

then Clinton never would've been placed in this position, and we never would've learned about Monica.

He would never have been in that position had he not had Paula Jones brought to his hotel room so he could sexually acost her and he would never have been in that postition had he not engaged in the outrageous behavior he did in the oval office with a subordinate employee.

You see, Clinton, and most reasonable Americans,

Most reasonable Americans want their presidents to be honorable men who do not attack women and treat their employees with respect. Too bad the Democrats didn't heed the warnings about Clinton, but they didn't and this was the result.

Now if George Bush sudden cut off the river flowing through his land so that those down stream had no water are you saying that they would have to wait 8 years to seek legal recourse?

There were many examples the SCOTUS gave as to why the CITIZEN serving as President is not suddenly about the law and immune to any civil action. The PRESIDENT is but not the preson serving in the office.

What if he had been an investment banker and the day after he gets elected it is discovered the funds he was directing had all lost thier values due to his neglectful management, would the people involved have to wait 8 years before they could seek legal recourse?

want their elected president to be able to concentrate on their duties, and NOT be tied up in a court of law giving depositions, having meetings with lawyers, and taking time out for appearences in court, when the single most important job in the world is at stake.

Presidents still have private lives and they are still citizens subject to the law, I suggest you take care in whom you elect with this in mind.

All Clinton asked for was a "stay." A delay in the proceedings until after his term of service. Then Paula could've had her day in court. Never once did Clinton claim to be "above the law," as the right wing nut jobs screamed.

OH he wanted much more than that, this was just ONE of the ploys he used. But Jones, like everyone else, had a right to her day in court. SCOTUS was quite clear on that.

Each of you has to weigh what is the greater good for our nation...

Spare me, the greater good is served when we make sure we have honorable men who obey the law and treat their employees properly serving as President.

It's just simple, basic commen sense people, and more so then that, it's what's best for our nation. But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

No body got anything on Clinton, he threw it in our faces.

You people that are so gleeful should realize that allowing this civil case to proceed placed a far bigger stain on the White House then was ever found on that blue dress.

No it was not.

But go ahead...have your laughs...it's America who suffered, and now all future presidents can be subjected to the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever brought down.

It wasn't a laughing matter and if there was suffering it was due to the actions of one man, Bill Clinton.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sorry Navy, I didn't mean to be rude, but my whole argument was that presidents should not be subjected to civil lawsuits while in office.

Of course, everything you typed in your 2nd to last post is accurate, but my contention is...no president should ever be placed in that position. Of course Clinton committed perjury and I'm not happy about him pulling such a Homeresque stunt, but if the civil lawsuit had been delayed, Clinton never would've been stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I was so mad that they could do this to any president, while he has more important things to worry about, that I swore I would never vote republican again. I was disgusted by the right wings fanatical lust for power at any expense to our nation.

And yeah, at least when I watch The Simpsons it usually makes me laugh. Not too many shows on the boob tube that I can say that about consistently.

No problem Hoot, I guess the difference in you and me is I believe no president is above the law be it Bush or Clinton.........

 

[Stinger]

Sorry Navy, I didn't mean to be rude, but my whole argument was that presidents should not be subjected to civil lawsuits while in office.

An arugment that was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court on ALL counts.

Of course, everything you typed in your 2nd to last post is accurate, but my contention is...no president should ever be placed in that position.

Then don't elect people of such low character.

Of course Clinton committed perjury and I'm not happy about him pulling such a Homeresque stunt, but if the civil lawsuit had been delayed, Clinton never would've been stuck between a rock and a hard place.

His being President had nothing to do with it. And committing felonies, multiple times, encouraging and then allowing a young girl to commit a felony on his behalf, endangering her of going to federal prison is not my idea of a "Homereque stunt".

I was so mad that they could do this to any president, while he has more important things to worry about, that I swore I would never vote republican again.

Oh spare us, he should have been thinking about that while he was sexually harrassing, and sexually exploiting the women who worked for him.

I was disgusted by the right wings fanatical lust for power at any expense to our nation.

You really haven't a clue do you. What did you expect the "right wing" to do as Clinton forced his vile behavior on all of us. Did you really think it wouldn't come out one way or the other. Clinton is such a narcissist that he believes people around him think it's OK for him to do the things he does and that they love him so much they will actually commit crimes to cover it up for him and that the American people love him so much that he can get away with his treatment of subordinate employees. The man is a disgrace, and he is and always has been a lewd, dirty old man. We had ample warning before he was elected into office, you got what you voted for.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Gee...what a novel concept? But you're exactly right. The President SHOULD be treated as someone other than a regular US citizen.

All of the Supreme Courts previous decisions had ruled that a sitting president could not be subject to a CIVIL (not criminal) suit arising out of his official actions while president, because the defense would be too time consuming and place too many restraints on the office.

That's good to know. Clinton wasn't president when he waved his flag at Paula Jones. That's why the courts ruled that her case had merit and could proceed.

Also, given the nature of the charges I'm not so sure that any court would have exempted Clinton from a civil suit if he'd done the same thing while president. The protections granted from civil prosecution I believe were limited to legitimate lawfull acts inside the scope of the president's duties. Attempted rape and sexual molestation aren't covered by the Constitution.

 

[Carl]

Attempted rape and sexual molestation aren't covered by the Constitution.

Nor is murder, capital murder, car theft, fraud, embezzlement, incest, child molestation, etc.

The Constitution exists to enumerate the precise powers delegated to the Federal Government. I'm not seeing how it comes into play with regard to criminal actions...be they on the part of Presidents or not.

Therefore, I remain baffled at why you'd even bring up the Constitution in this context. (not really, I understand obfuscation. I'm being rhetorical)

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Nor is murder, capital murder, car theft, fraud, embezzlement, incest, child molestation, etc.

The Constitution exists to enumerate the precise powers delegated to the Federal Government. I'm not seeing how it comes into play with regard to criminal actions...be they on the part of Presidents or not.

Therefore, I remain baffled at why you'd even bring up the Constitution in this context. (not really, I understand obfuscation. I'm being rhetorical)

The Constitution isn't a shield behind which a corrupt predident can hide. Arguments about how a rapist president should be exempt from civil suits for actions he took prior to assuming office because he's the president must derive their strength from the Constitution...except that their arguments have no foundation in the Constitution.

 

[Carl]

Arguments about how a rapist president should be exempt from civil suits for actions he took prior to assuming office because he's the president must derive their strength from the Constitution...except that their arguments have no foundation in the Constitution.

My understanding is that the Constitution did not protect any President from a civil suit. Are you aware of one who was so protected? I can only think of one who ever had a civil suit brought against him, I thought it was successfully prosecuted.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

My understanding is that the Constitution did not protect any President from a civil suit. Are you aware of one who was so protected? I can only think of one who ever had a civil suit brought against him, I thought it was successfully prosecuted.

Hmm...the Paula Jones suit wasn't successfully prosecuted, Clinton perjured himself to prevent that from happening. Who?

 

[cnredd]

My understanding is that the Constitution did not protect any President from a civil suit. Are you aware of one who was so protected? I can only think of one who ever had a civil suit brought against him, I thought it was successfully prosecuted.

I think you two are stepping over each other to agree with each other...

I don't know of any precedent where a sitting President was involved in a civil dispute, but let's be honest here...

Why would it matter?...Showing that X number of Presidents committed felonies before should not be an excuse to let a current one slide...

Personally, if a previous President was involved as much as the last one, the question should still reside in people's brains..."Why did we elect him?"...

"He'll make us feel good for a few years" is not a good excuse...

I could win the lottery tomorrow and give 99% to the poor...It don't mean crap if I denied someone their rights and due process like "He whom shall not be blamed" has done...

I find in utterly ridiculous that people whine about their rights and liberties somehow being denied with the current administration, but with the last administration, they declare, "That shouldn't count...He's too important."...:roll:

 

[Hoot]

I don't have time this morning...but are you people listening?

A civil case IS NOT a felony case.

Clinton never claimed to be "above the law." Sheesh...at least learn that much from this discussion if nothing else?! Clinton asked for a delay.

Why? Because the office of the White House should not be tied up in civil court cases...the job is too important.

Senators, congressmen, and all judges...including judges on the USSC are immune from civil cases while in office.

Even a grunt private in the military has the right to delay ALL civil cases until after they serve their country!

But you don't want to allow this basic right to the commander in chief of the entire military?

Unbelievable.

 

[Stinger]

Why? Because the office of the White House should not be tied up in civil court cases...the job is too important.

So if Dr. Bill Frist gets elected President, and the day after he is sworn in a patient he had been treating dies from complications his family believes Dr. Frist caused, and that family has no money to pay the bills that resulted and have no means now of income, they have to wait 8 years before they can sue him if he wins relection?

Sorry the courts decided otherwise, you can complain all you want but you are not of factual legal basis.

Senators, congressmen, and all judges...including judges on the USSC are immune from civil cases while in office.

For personal actions or just for actions AS a Senator, congressman or judge?

Even a grunt private in the military has the right to delay ALL civil cases until after they serve their country!

Not of private lawsuits, if one of my Marine sons is involved in a car accident in thier personal vehcile on thier own time they can most certainly be sued. They are only immune from suits arising from the scope of their employment. You've been reading one of those bogus blogs again.

But you don't want to allow this basic right to the commander in chief of the entire military?

He wasn't being sued as the commander in chief was he.

Unbelievable.

Unbelieveable how much you don't know what you are talking about. It has already been adjudicated in court. YOU ARE WRONG, admit it.

 

[Hoot]

Unbelieveable how much you don't know what you are talking about. It has already been adjudicated in court. YOU ARE WRONG, admit it.

Gee...thanks so much for the compliment, Stinger. Of course, you've always been quite the gentleman, haven't you?

I won't admit I'm wrong because I know I'm right. Luckily for you I'm a bit under the weather and I have to rest up for a Lucinda Williams concert tomorrow night, so I won't get into this with you right now, eventhough I could make a sham of the USSC decision that allowed the Jones case to go forward...a case she waited a good 3 years to file. But because there is no intellectual port in your harbor to understand that a President is never truely off duty, as you subscribe to the marine involved in a car accident while off duty, then the insanity of trying to speak reason to the irrational is hardly worth my time. It is you sir, who are so emotionally hung up on Clinton, that you fail to see the greater good for our nation.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Gee...thanks so much for the compliment, Stinger. Of course, you've always been quite the gentleman, haven't you?

I won't admit I'm wrong because I know I'm right. Luckily for you I'm a bit under the weather and I have to rest up for a Lucinda Williams concert tomorrow night, so I won't get into this with you right now, eventhough I could make a sham of the USSC decision that allowed the Jones case to go forward...a case she waited a good 3 years to file. But because there is no intellectual port in your harbor to understand that a President is never truely off duty, as you subscribe to the marine involved in a car accident while off duty, then the insanity of trying to speak reason to the irrational is hardly worth my time. It is you sir, who are so emotionally hung up on Clinton, that you fail to see the greater good for our nation.

Many people wait until near the expiration of the filing window because they're trying to figure out if its worth it and if it's the best thing to do. That never detracts from the validity of the lawsuit.

Yeah, president's are never off duty. That's why he should have been impeached for breaking federal sexual harassment laws in addition to his perjury.

The greatest good of our nation would have been for Clinton to lose the 1992 election. The next greatest good would have been for him to have been impeached sooner, and removed.

The least amount of good was letting that bucket of spit remain in power.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Unbelieveable how much you don't know what you are talking about. It has already been adjudicated in court. YOU ARE WRONG, admit it.

Gee...thanks so much for the compliment, Stinger. Of course, you've always been quite the gentleman, haven't you?

Nothing ungentlemanly about it, my statement stands.

I won't admit I'm wrong because I know I'm right.

It's been adjudicated to the highest legal authority. You're wrong, a sitting president just as everyone else you claimed had immunity does not. You are FACTULLY wrong, your claim that people in the military have immunity from ALL civil suits is sheer idiocy and I hate to have to say it so strongly but I already pointed it out to you and you still try to maintain that position saying I am wrong.

Luckily for you ..............

There is no luck involved, we're talking facts and you are factually wrong.

eventhough I could make a sham of the USSC decision

The best lawyers in the country tried to case all the way up to the SCOTUS and lost. I have no faith you could do better.

...a case she waited a good 3 years to file.

It wasn't three years from the time her name was disclosed by a former body guard of Clintons claiming that she had wanted an affair with him, but it's a moot point anyway. She gave Clinton time to admit that it was not she who tried to have a sexual encounter and clear her name, her refused, she sued.

But because there is no intellectual port in your harbor to understand that a President is never truely off duty,

Specious arguement already rejected by the courts.

as you subscribe to the marine involved in a car accident while off duty,

YOU made the claim about people in the military buddy not me, you were completely wrong in your statement.

then the insanity of trying to speak reason to the irrational is hardly worth my time.

Hmmmm I see the white flag and the running shoes coming out. Your mock outrage is quite transparent. YOu can't support the arguements you made because the are factually wrong so now we get a does of hyperbole. Don;t think it fools anyone.

It is you sir, who are so emotionally hung up on Clinton, that you fail to see the greater good for our nation.

Emotion has nothing to do with it, facts my friend facts. I note you did not address my scearnio about Dr. Frist. Why, because it shows the fallacy of you statement and why the SCOTUS ruled as it did. The preson who serves as President is not above the law, that is one reason you should take great care in whom you vote for. As the court pointed out Clinton had ample time to play golf every week and vacation at Hyannisport, he had ample time to address a civil suit and every citizen no matter who they are suing has their right to their day in court.

 

[Navy Pride]

Gee...thanks so much for the compliment, Stinger. Of course, you've always been quite the gentleman, haven't you?

I won't admit I'm wrong because I know I'm right. Luckily for you I'm a bit under the weather and I have to rest up for a Lucinda Williams concert tomorrow night, so I won't get into this with you right now, eventhough I could make a sham of the USSC decision that allowed the Jones case to go forward...a case she waited a good 3 years to file. But because there is no intellectual port in your harbor to understand that a President is never truely off duty, as you subscribe to the marine involved in a car accident while off duty, then the insanity of trying to speak reason to the irrational is hardly worth my time. It is you sir, who are so emotionally hung up on Clinton, that you fail to see the greater good for our nation.

Give me a break...."Slick Willie" was a womannizing, draft dodger, pot smoker, felon, unconvicted rapist who embarrassed this country more then any president in history.........Other that he wasn't to bad.........:roll:

 

[easyt65]

BEWARE: Clinton Apologist Ahead. Look out for Falling Bull$h!t!

Had the USSC not made such a stupid decision...a decision that they had previously never allowed to happen, then Clinton never would've been placed in this position, and we never would've learned about Monica.

So, it was the USSC's fault Slick Willie couldn't keep it in his pants, was FORCED to commit adultery, committed felonies of perjury and witnes tampering? :shock:

You see, Clinton, and most reasonable Americans, want their elected president to be able to concentrate on their duties, and NOT be tied up in a court of law giving depositions, having meetings with lawyers, and taking time out for appearences in court, when the single most important job in the world is at stake.

Indeed! How can we expect a President to be bothered with having to answer for sexually harrassing women, having sex with interns in the White house, committing treason by selling missile technology to the Chinese, etc. If the USSC would have just ignored Paula Jones the way the Democrats and media ignored his illegal FBI files, his wife's crossing police lines to steal files from a dead man's office and then perjuring herself about those files, and how Slick Willey commited treason with the Chinese, we would NEVER had to have been bothered as a nation with such turmoil, and Slick Willey could have gone on about his business of ignoring Al Qaeda and fondling interns!

I would have much rather had a President who actually did somethig about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, after being briefed by Able Danger, instead of ignoring it and lying about it later, but obviously the injustice of being hounded for his actions was too much of a strain! I would rather have had a President who acted after scores of Americans were killed in the Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings, but it is the USSC's fault Clinton was too pre-occupied to act! (Oh wait, Paula Jones and Lewinski was AFTER that....:doh )

Each of you has to weigh what is the greater good for our nation...

Dude, SAVE IT! If CLINTON would have thought about what was best for this nation, he would have acted to defend and protect our people from Al Qaeda instead of ignoring their deaths time and again! If CLINTON would have thought about what was best for this nation, he would not have betrayed the U.S. by selling the missile technology to the Chinese military that allowed them to finally be able to reach us with their nukes! If CLINTON would have thought about what was best for this nation, he would not have sexually harrased women while in office, would never have committed adultery with an intern, would have never allowed himself to get into a situation where he was taken to court to begin with, would never have committed felonies of perjury, witness tampering and more, and he would have stepped down as President instead of dragging the country through an Impeachment hearing while making this country a laughig stock abroad! So save your little, "weigh the greater good" speech for Clinton!

But hey, they had to get Clinton on something, didn't they?

Come on! The man sexually harrassed women while holding the office. CLINTON broke the law, committed felonies, betrayed his oath of office, betrayed this country...and YOU say "They had to get him on something"?! Thank you for posting the BEST Clinton Apologist/Justification/Democratic Party BS Spin I have seen yet! The guy was a criminal who betrayed this country and the system, and YOU are blaming the system and the country!:lol:

You people that are so gleeful should realize that allowing this civil case to proceed placed a far bigger stain on the White House then was ever found on that blue dress.

Why didn't Clinton think about this before hand? Why didn't he think about THAT himself and step aside? Because the only 'greater good' he ever thought about was HIMSELF, NOT THIS NATION!

But go ahead...have your laughs...it's America who suffered, and now all future presidents can be subjected to the single most idiotic ruling the USSC ever brought down.

NO ONE IS LAUGHING, but you are right - it was AMERICA that suffered this bafoon's Presidnecy and was forced to endure his scandals and inept leadership! Thanks for Blaming the USSC, Republicans, Paula Jones, Americans - everyone BUT Slick Willey for the crimes he committed and the damage done by them!

Congratulations. You just screwed America, and some of you are happy about it.

WRONG! It was Slick Willey who $crewed America, and the only thing we are happy about is that the $OB is finally out of office.....even though we keep having to endure his scandals even now, 6 years after he is gone! * (Like Sandy Berger stealing classified docs proving Clinton lied About Able Danger and what he failed to do as President against Al Qaeda/Bin Laden....)

 

[Hoot]

Just a couple of comments...great concert by the way last night. Those of you who are not aware of Lucinda Williams...well...let's just say your life is the poorer. My only wish is that I could be left broken-hearted by Lucinda, and become the subject of one of her songs...sigh.

Now, on to business...

First of all, Stinger....you again made the comment in your last post that Clinton, as President, is not above the law.

I would appreciate it if you would admit publicly, in these forums, that Clinton NEVER claimed to be above the law. If you cannot admit error on this one point then further debate with you is pointless. You can accuse me of running up the white flag, or whatever turns you on, but if you are so devoid of this basic fact of the details of the Paula Jones V Clinton civil case, then I may as well be arguing with my toilet bowl brush. It might even be more stimulating?

You're such a fan of the USSC, even they acknowledged that...

"the petitioner (the president) does not contend that the occupant of the White House is immune from judicial scrutiny. The President argues merely for a postponement of the judicial proceedings."

So...is everyone in agreement with me on this one basic fact? Or do you prefer to continue going off on tangents and distorting the truth?

Without this small condescension, from those of you in disagreement with my position, further debate is pointless.

I'll give you a heads up though...I am not arguing what Clinton's lawyers argued to the USSC...the "separation of powers" argument, which was denied by the USSC, but rather, the "balance of interest" in this case, a legal precedent for over 200 years in our nation.

I'd also consider it a personal favor if some of you would find a thesaurus and use an alternate word for "specious." It's getting a little worn out.

 

[Stinger]

First of all, Stinger....you again made the comment in your last post that Clinton, as President, is not above the law.

Here is my quote which you did not supply>> The person who serves as President is not above the law, that is one reason you should take great care in whom you vote for. As the court pointed out Clinton had ample time to play golf every week and vacation at Hyannisport, he had ample time to address a civil suit and every citizen no matter who they are suing has their right to their day in court.

I would appreciate it if you would admit publicly, in these forums, that Clinton NEVER claimed to be above the law.

No but you can ADMIT that I never claimed HE said it. I said it.

If you cannot admit error on this one point then further debate with you is pointless.

Since I never claimed he SAID it, it is YOU who are in error.

The fact is YOU are putting him above the law and he tried to PLACE himself above the law, whether he said it or not is a moot point. He like any other citizen had to face a law suit, and like any other citizen, in spite of the appologist attempts to excues him, had to tell the truth under oath.

You can accuse me of running up the white flag, or whatever turns you on, but if you are so devoid of this basic fact of the details of the Paula Jones V Clinton civil case, then I may as well be arguing with my toilet bowl brush. It might even be more stimulating?

Bring it on, what FACTS am I devoid of, you have shown nothing of the sort and you know it.

You're such a fan of the USSC, even they acknowledged that...

"the petitioner (the president) does not contend that the occupant of the White House is immune from judicial scrutiny. The President argues merely for a postponement of the judicial proceedings."

Yes which puts him above the law everyone else must face and denies a citizen to right to thier day in court without delay, and the court rejected his arugements, something which you can't seem to grasp.

So...is everyone in agreement with me on this one basic fact? Or do you prefer to continue going off on tangents and distorting the truth?

It's YOUR tangent not mine. Your position is untenable, it has been rejected by the courts, you are wrong. Admit it and move on.

Without this small condescension, from those of you in disagreement with my position, further debate is pointless.

Only because you know you don't have the facts to back up your claims.

I'll give you a heads up though...I am not arguing what Clinton's lawyers argued to the USSC...the "separation of powers" argument, which was denied by the USSC, but rather, the "balance of interest" in this case, a legal precedent for over 200 years in our nation.

And it is in the interest of the country that the President obey's the law in the case of the Jones trial and that the President does not create a hostile work environement in the White House by seeking sexual favors from subordinate employees. But are you claiming that is the ONLY arguement they made and they did not make the very same arguement you are trying to create the "interest of the country"? Here is your previous cite.

"the petitioner (the president) does not contend that the occupant of the White House is immune from judicial scrutiny. The President argues merely for a postponement of the judicial proceedings."

It's the same arguement and it was rejected. If he has time to play golf he had time to be in court.

I'd also consider it a personal favor if some of you would find a thesaurus and use an alternate word for "specious." It's getting a little worn out.

Well then stop making specious arguments.

 

[easyt65]

First of all, Stinger....you again made the comment in your last post that Clinton, as President, is not above the law. I would appreciate it if you would admit publicly, in these forums, that Clinton NEVER claimed to be above the law. .

Wrong! Everything he did screamed out, "I am above the law!" He illewgally collected FBI files on his oponents even though he knew it was illegal to do so! But he was the President! His wife crosses a police-taped Foster office to steal files. That police tape means 'NO Crossing' to us, but the Clinton's were above the Law. He attempted to make himself above the law through commiting the felonies of perjury and witness tampering, putting himself above the oath of office that he took in which he SWORE to uphold and defend the Constitution! He placed HIMSELF above that Constitution by attempting to deprive Jones of her Constitutional Right to a fair trial!


This is just a continuation of the thread above that blames the USSC, the GOP, this country, and Americans for Clinton's Crimes! STOP THE CLINTON APOLOGIST/Blame Re-Direction :spin: already!

 

[Hoot]

No offense, easyt, but I prefer adult conversation.

So, Stinger...Clinton never claimed to be above the law in this civil proceeding?

Yes or no?

Please note that court cases are delayed everyday in every court in this nation for individuals with far less importance to the world then the president.

Your golf argument is poor because who's to say the president does not discuss bills coming up for votes, cabinet meetings, affairs of state?

Do I believe Bush ignores all duties of the presidency when he vacations down in Crawford, Texas? Of course not!

Reagan was vacationing when the Grenada issue began, and he wanted to rush back to the White House, but his handlers advised against this because it would create the impression the U.S. might be about to invade if he shortened his vacation.

You're the president...vacations, golf..etc...is no indication of being free from the duties of the single most important job in the world.

Would a civil court case be allowed to proceed against Truman during WWII? Wilson at the start of WWI? If your Marine son was being shipped out to Iraq the day after his car accident, would he have to forgo his duty in Iraq? ( Gee...then anyone who didn't want to go to Iraq could have a friend tie him up in civil court...even if the grounds were meritless...that would do a hell of a lot for our security, wouldn't it?)

Please note...if you can try to be civil in your responses, I'll do my best to show you the same courtesy...otherwise I may as well be having a screaming match with a kid like easyt.