-dead radical stereotypes about them really do
apply. They will be revealed as
mean-spirited, partisan hacks, hypocrites, moral absolutists hiding their
craven desire for vengeance and power beneath a ridiculously transparent
façade of pious "deliberation" and "respect for law." -- Gary Kamiya, Salon Mag.
mean-spirited, partisan hacks, hypocrites, moral absolutists hiding their
craven desire for vengeance and power beneath a ridiculously transparent
façade of pious "deliberation" and "respect for law." -- Gary Kamiya, Salon Mag.
The Clinton Defenders insist on
speaking silly nonsense. Although I have no political sympathy for the equally
corrupt RepubliCrats, lets deal with reality here. I am repeating a post to
another newsgroup.
1.- Clinton should never be asked about this issue because it had
nothing
>to do with the case judged (it was the Paula Jones case). The question
>should had been rejected by the judge for being irrelevant.
Sorry, this is just plain wrong.
Our great Feminist Leader, Bill Clinton personally lobbied Congress to expand permissable discovery in regards to sexual harrassment cases. He aggressively pushed this change in federal discovery law (violence against women's act, 1996).
As an attorney, I agree that wide ranging depostion discovery in regards to one's sexual conduct could be improper and intrusive, but it is only poetic justice that Clinton gets hoisted by his own petard. If it was Mr. Average Citizen facing this intrusive questioning, do you think Clinton would be championing YOUR right to privacy?
It is interesting to note that not one of Clinton Defenders has demanded that the Clinton sponsered expansion of deposition discovery permitting unlimited questioning in regards to a defendant's sex life be eliminated. If you want to see a Clinton Defender sweat, ask him/her if he/she would be in
favor of restricting such wide ranging questioning in sexual harrassment cases.
I just love it when these pandering politicians who knowingly pass unconstitutional intrusive laws get caught in their own evil legal spider web.
>2.- Clinton should have had the right to not answering the question and he
>shouldn't be prosecuted for not having told the truth because it violates
>his right to not pleading guilty.
More nonsense. Of course Clinton could have refused to testify before Ken Starr's Grand Jury. He could have taken the Fifth and refused to tesify, like any other citizen. Instead he made a political decision that he would commit premediated serial perjury and get away with it. Why he decided to commit blatant federal felonious perjury is incomphrehensible.
>
>3.- Clinton had the right to protect not only his privacy but also the one
>of Monica Lewisnky.
Sure he did, but once he stupidly permitted himself to be sued for sexual harrassment and his lawyer stupidly permitted him to undergo wide ranging depostion discovery (see point 1 above), he lost that "right to privacy".
As an attorney I am still flabbergasted that Clinton did not simply take a default on the Paula Jones case. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the litigation could go forward while he was Pres. all he had to say was that it was too intrusive and demeaning on the Presidency to have to spend time defending the case and he would accept a default as to liabilitiy. When that happened the Court would then have merely ruled on the amount of damages, which under the facts of the case would have probably been less the $100,000.
Once again, Arrogance trumps Common Sense.
FLW
>to do with the case judged (it was the Paula Jones case). The question
>should had been rejected by the judge for being irrelevant.
Sorry, this is just plain wrong.
Our great Feminist Leader, Bill Clinton personally lobbied Congress to expand permissable discovery in regards to sexual harrassment cases. He aggressively pushed this change in federal discovery law (violence against women's act, 1996).
As an attorney, I agree that wide ranging depostion discovery in regards to one's sexual conduct could be improper and intrusive, but it is only poetic justice that Clinton gets hoisted by his own petard. If it was Mr. Average Citizen facing this intrusive questioning, do you think Clinton would be championing YOUR right to privacy?
It is interesting to note that not one of Clinton Defenders has demanded that the Clinton sponsered expansion of deposition discovery permitting unlimited questioning in regards to a defendant's sex life be eliminated. If you want to see a Clinton Defender sweat, ask him/her if he/she would be in
favor of restricting such wide ranging questioning in sexual harrassment cases.
I just love it when these pandering politicians who knowingly pass unconstitutional intrusive laws get caught in their own evil legal spider web.
>2.- Clinton should have had the right to not answering the question and he
>shouldn't be prosecuted for not having told the truth because it violates
>his right to not pleading guilty.
More nonsense. Of course Clinton could have refused to testify before Ken Starr's Grand Jury. He could have taken the Fifth and refused to tesify, like any other citizen. Instead he made a political decision that he would commit premediated serial perjury and get away with it. Why he decided to commit blatant federal felonious perjury is incomphrehensible.
>
>3.- Clinton had the right to protect not only his privacy but also the one
>of Monica Lewisnky.
Sure he did, but once he stupidly permitted himself to be sued for sexual harrassment and his lawyer stupidly permitted him to undergo wide ranging depostion discovery (see point 1 above), he lost that "right to privacy".
As an attorney I am still flabbergasted that Clinton did not simply take a default on the Paula Jones case. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the litigation could go forward while he was Pres. all he had to say was that it was too intrusive and demeaning on the Presidency to have to spend time defending the case and he would accept a default as to liabilitiy. When that happened the Court would then have merely ruled on the amount of damages, which under the facts of the case would have probably been less the $100,000.
Once again, Arrogance trumps Common Sense.
FLW
