wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 11:54 am, "Mike" wrote:

Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you. As our
country
is a nation of laws, you think the US is a joke also.

The law is no joke. It's application in the courts is rapidly
becoming a travesty, however.

Based on what? Your anecdotal nonsense?

This is the biggest joke yet. First you say Clinton lost his law license
because he didn't tell, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth" and then on the other side of your mouth you say lawyers have no
obligation to the truth. You should apply for a position in the Bush
administration.

Talk about twisting words! You are absolutely Clintonian!
I said that lawyers will stretch, twist, pervert the truth, etc. I
did no say this was OK.

Nor did I allege anything of the sort. Silly strawman games don't work with
me.

Your words:
"Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means possible.
They no longer have ANY OBLIGATION (emphasis added) to present the truth,
the whole truth, or anything like the truth."

More of your words:
"It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the
perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it."

Tell me again how I twisted your words again.

It's just a sad recognition that this is what
happens. I don't approve of it at all, but as you say, my opinion
doesn't matter.
When I say that the courts are not about truth, I mean that the truth
is no longer the goal of some or all of the lawyers.

Lawyers don't have the obligation to make the other side's case for them
regardless of what you think.

The case of Bronston that you cite makes it quite clear that the court
rules now make it OK to not tell the whole truth, but instead to
knowingly mislead the court.

That's not what Bronston says at all. It says that juries may not interpret
intent on misleading but factually correct statements, and there's a very
good and sound reason why this is which has been clearly articulated by the
text of the opinion. It also says it's the responsibility of the opposing
side to ask better questions if it feels the answers are misleading. Try
reading it again.

While I am no supporter of many things in the Bush administration, the
facts of this topic being discussed proves quite cleanly that it is
Clinton who talks out all sides of the mouth, etc.

On one issue that involved purely personal matters. That much is correct.
I've also provided numerous examples where the same has been done by the
present administration in matters that greatly affect the public. So from
an objective viewpoint rather than from an ideological one, you tell me
which is worse, if you can. I doubt you can.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Definitions vary quite widely in
the
public, which is exactly why the Jones lawyers insisted on providing a
definition.

The Jones lawyers weren't quite good enough to prevent a weasel from
finding a hole.

That was never their intent to begin with, nor did any such thing happen.
The lawsuit was thrown out of court for reasons which have nothing to do
with anything you've mentioned. That's a very pertinent point which you
keep choosing to ignore.

You mentioned Bronston vs United States.
In my review of some of the links, I found this interesting overview:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf

It covers a bit of the history about how misleading a court can be
determined not to be perjorative. This is not a compliment to our
legal system.
Especially when Clinton can claim that Lewinsky had sex with him, but
he never had sex with her, even during that particular act.

Unfortunately, this particular parsing of the technicalities allowed
Clinton to get away with lying. As the article says, he found the
loophole he was looking for.

You keep assuming that it was Clinton's obligation to make the case for
Paula Jones and arguing from that assumption. That's why your horse loses
before it ever gets out of the gate.

Now, if this guy can parse things that well, he is not the kind of guy
I'd ever get into a contract with, because he'd sure as heck find a
way, a loophole, or an omission/commission to escape anything he
wanted to. Yeah, he's that good. They had him fenced in, and he
escaped through a loophole.

Hogwash. They never had a case to begin with. I've already asked you this
once and you ignored it, so I'll restate the question. Do you have any idea
how weak a civil case must be to get thrown out of court?

I can imagine some pimply-faced teenager trying to tell the same thing
to the girl's dad: " I didn't have sex with her. (under his breath)
She had sex with me."
I don't think daddy would see the difference.

More fallacious, irrelevant, and misleading analogies. Or should I say
"lies"? I'm sure you think you're clever for coming up with them, but you
aren't.

I'm not a lawyer. Now I'm even more pleased with that. I want the
truth and the whole story, not just the piece you want me to think.

As a wise man once said, "want in one hand...."

What you want, or what career path you choose is irrelevant to whether
Clinton committed perjury or not.

You really are on some serious drugs. First you claim Clinton "wouldn't
have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth", then when I point
out
the facts of the timeline of the civil trial and the independent counsel
investigation, you claim this is evidence that he "dragged it out". Not
only can you not think in a linear fashion, you truly are ignorant of
the
facts of what really happened. The investigation started in the first
place
to investigate Clinton, not his "friends" his political rivals, or
anyone
else. First it started with Whitewater and couldn't find anything, then
it
went on to travel office firings, FBI files, Vince Foster's suicide, and
finally the Lewinsky scandal. Then you want to claim the biggest witch
hunt
in the history of the US was all the fault of Clinton's "antics"? The
world
you live in is quite far from the place most call reality.

Many of the things they went after Clinton for were nonsense. Much of
the rest appears to be escape by deceit, much as with Lewinsky.
I never have seen a good explanation of why FBI files were in the
White House, or why Rose law firm papers were found in the trunk of an
old car, or a good explanation of why they fired the travel office
employees.

Non-objective people rarely are satisfied with any explanation if it goes
counter to their ideology. That doesn't mean such explanations weren't
provided.

Actually most don't, but Clinton certainly did and most certainly paid a
high price for it, but what does that have to do with whether he was
guilty
of perjury or not? You keep reaching farther and farther, but you're no
closer than you were when you started.


"Misleading" does not equal lying, and lying (even under oath) does not
equal perjury.
I expect, and respect, only honesty.
Misleading and lying are both dishonest. They are both deliberately
intended to leave the listener with the wrong conclusion. That is a
dishonest act.
Only a lawyer would find otherwise.

Strawman rhetoric and false analogies are both intentionally misleading and
both were used by you in your lastest reply (as well as in others). By your
own account you must not have too much respect for yourself. I'm not sure I
blame you.

False to the point of ridicule, and it didn't happen in the Oval Office
to
begin with.
There you go, parsing things with Clintonian technicalities.
IIRC, is was a room just off the Oval Office. Still, it wasn't the
White House proper.

Oh jeez, this is a real knee slapper.

Your statement:
"Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, ..."

My reply:
"False to the point of ridicule,..."

Rather than try and defend your obviously primary assertion even though I
called BS (it would have been fun watching you try), you focused in on a
'technicality' which was my secondary and obviously factual retort.
Furthermore the only reason I included it in the first place was to point
out your continual exaggeration of the facts in a vain attempt to support
your weak arguments.

Not to the USSC. Try reading the decision sometime.
Got a link? I'm in the mood for comic relief!
Of course you'd think that. The law is just a joke to you.
Bronston v. United States

The law is not a joke.

They why do you keep alleging it is?

And the link I provided above shows just how
frightening the law can be. In their zeal to specify everything, the
lawyers have made it easy to get away with anything.

Ignorance is the basis for most fears.

Obviously you don't support a vigorous defense. You support some system
where the defendant is required to make the plaintant's case, even
though
the plaintant didn't have a valid case to begin with. You support a
system
where a defendent is required to provide 'your' particular definition of
something, even though a completely different definition was supplied,
agreed to by both sides and the court. You support a system where it's
perfectly OK to subvert the political, civil, and criminal systems of
our
country so long as such subversion is aimed at someone you don't
particularly like.
Not at all. I support (but will never see) a system where all parties
are required and inclined to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.

I seriously doubt you even know where that phrase originates or how silly
and irrelevant it is to any point you're trying to make.

I expect all the facts to be available to both sides (called
discovery). I expect the arguments to be about what applies to the
laws at hand, and each side to present the law and the facts from
their own perspective. I don't expect juries or judges to make
decisions without the complete set of relevant facts.

I also expect to be disappointed. This is based not only on my own
experiences (where their defending laywer presented material during
the discovery that was dishonest, and much of which was complete
fabrication. The goal was not to present the truth, but to scare me.
It worked, because there was no way to prove much of what they
claimed, either to be the truth or not. Since there was a possibility
that the judge would believe their lawyer, who knew the statements
were false, I settled for less than half of what was stolen from me.
This was not perjury, since it never got to the court and the "I
swear" point. But it was purely dishonest. It is difficult to fight
an accomplished liar. And THAT is why I dislike the Clintons.

Material presented during discovery is subject to perjury laws (you seem to
either forget or are ignorant of the fact that the original Clinton
testimony was presented during discovery proceedings). Obviously there is
more to the story than you're presenting here which isn't favorable to your
version of events. I'm not really interested in hearing the sordid details
of your legal troubles. I'm just pointing out that you're contradicting
yourself (again) whether you realize it or not.

So based on your own perceptions of how you got screwed by the legal system
(naturally the other side of the story will never be disclosed here), you
have formed a strong bias based solely on your own anecdotal evidence or
other false analogies like the OJ trial, and therefore you are clearly
justified and condemning our court system, lawyers in general, and the
Clintons based on these emotional experiences and observations. Curiously
though, you have no sympathy for Clinton being subjected to a frivolous
lawsuit by the same legal system you condemn and justify that by saying he
got what was coming to him because of his own "antics".

May you be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, a victim of malicious
prosecution, hounded relentlessly, forced to spend a fortune to defend
yourself, forced to provide public testimony on private matters,
unjustly
terminated from your job, sold out by your lawyer, and thrown in jail
for a
crime you didn't commit, all by a bunch of people who have your
standards.

If they had my standards, the above diatribe wouldn't have a chance to
occur.

Well you certainly have a different evaluation of your standards than I do.
You justified the frivolous Clinton lawsuit and 7 year witch hunt and every
thing that was spent in his defense on those false accusations because he
got what was coming to him because of his "antics". You justified the
impeachment procedings because he was "dishonest". You claim lawyers should
ignore relevant case law because YOU don't agree with it, and you claim
Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office, even though
there was no legal basis for it. Those ARE your standards which you can't
even bear the thought of being applied in your own direction.

Which doesn't justify subverting the political system, ...
Read the link. It was Clinton who perverted the truth, and found
loopholes to pervert the system.

Your link does not support your statement regardless of what you might
think. Even after the "whole truth" was made known to the judge in the
Clinton lawsuit, she STILL threw it out of court. So in the end Clinton
made misleading statements about a deeply personal matter which were
immaterial to the outcome of the case to begin with. Even if you simply
assume he intended to mislead, that intent had nothing to do with the
outcome of the lawsuit and everything to do with preventing the Jones
lawyers from publically embarrassing him and harming him politically (which
was their only intent in the first place).

And still you haven't even tried to argue against my assertions that the
Jones lawyers brought forth a lawsuit they knew was frivolous to begin with
for nefarious purposes (AKA subverting the civil courts), you haven't even
tried to argue against my assertions that Republicans brought forth a
taxpayer funded witch hunt (AKA subverting the criminal justice system), and
you haven't even tried to argue against my assertions that Republicans
brought forth impeachment proceedings that weren't supported by the US
Constitution and they knew would fail (AKA subverting the political system).

What you can't seem to understand is I really could give a rat's arse what
you think of Clinton morally, ethically, or however else you chose to judge
him based on your unidirectional standards. I have never tried to defend
him on those grounds regardless of your strawman BS that I am. Your
argument is essentially that even though you as much conceed that Clinton
can't be legally held responsible for his actions, the end didn't justify
his means for defending himself. Yet on the other side of your mouth you
justify what happened to him in the end even though the means were
execrable. You can't have it both ways. Pick one and go with it.