Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 10:22 am, "Mike" wrote:

Lawyers get paid to defend their clients within the letter of the law.
Just
because you are unwilling or unable to understand the law, doesn't mean
it
was broken.

That's the best joke of the day! You should be a guest on Leno. Or a
witness for Clinton.

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.

I'm just using your own silly associative logic here, btw.

Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means
possible. They no longer have any obligation to present the truth,
the whole truth, or anything like the truth. Prior to going to
court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition
to back down. Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the
truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the
truth. Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they
are mainly about presentation and obfuscation.

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.

As evidence, I present both the OJ trials, and the Clinton
proceedings.

You have yet to present any evidence of anything, other than your own
ignorance of our legal system.

Do you have an example of a person who endured a 7 year, $100 million
partisan investigation with out so much as an indictment? You still
can't
come up with anything that approaches a reasonable explanation.

Do you have any evidence of anyone who got BJs in the oval office,
other than WJC?

Yes, but what does that have to do with the fact that you have no reasonable
explanation as to why Clinton wasn't indicted?

Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur.
And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the
defense is also at play here.

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7
year
investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you?


Bill dragged it out? You're kidding, right? "Lots of his friends"
included
no one in his administration and none of the charges involved any
Clinton
business dealings.

Quite a number of "friends of Bill" were convicted.

You have already mentioned that. Now try explaining its relevance, or is
guilt by association the game you want to play? I kinda like that game, btw
and could have big fun with it, but I doubt you would.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was
accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones.
The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your
definition of "is".
Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is,
and...."

Or maybe if you were more familiar with the facts of the case you could
speak from a position of intelligence rather than from a position of
ignorance. The Jones lawyers provided the definition which was accepted
by
the court. That is a fact regardless of any semantic nonsense you want
to
allege.

A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers
and the courts who haggled over definitions. We the ordinary people
pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex".

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.

Really? The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.
BINGO! See how he dragged all this stuff out? Had he behaved, or not
dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have
proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral
office.

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.

I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
No excuse. And most get caught and pay the price and learn their
lesson.

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.

If making misleading
statements
Lying.

"Misleading" does not equal lying, and lying (even under oath) does not
equal perjury. But you keep stretching, I'm enjoying watching your
contortions.

about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business
It became the court's business when the information was related to the
sexual harrrassment lawsuit against him.
Regardless of the legal twisting, it is evident to most that he did
what the women claimed he did.

Really? You might want to check on what Ann Coulter had to say about that.
She was one of Paula Jones' lawyers and now says Jones was a fraud.
Furthermore the case was thrown out of court. Do you even realize how weak
a civil case must be to get thrown out of court?

and never involved his official functions is the worst of his
transgressions,
Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, and
should be treated that way.

False to the point of ridicule, and it didn't happen in the Oval Office to
begin with.

Anyone who has an employer recognizes
that whatever is done at work is related to work, and you can be held
accountable.

You do know there is no time clock that the president punches in when he
comes to work, right? Furthermore the president conducts the people's
business wherever he is, no matter if he's in his home, his car, outside in
his back yard, on vacation, or probably on the toilet on occassion. There's
no association between where he is and what is or isn't the people's
business. Trying to associate the president with a factory worker is
childish at best, and misleading at worst, or should that be lying at worst?

that's not too bad historically speaking.
You set a very low bar for performance and behavior.

I've never condoned the behavior. My point was that none of it amounted to
the level of criminality and certainly not to the Constitutional standard of
impeachment. Your continual attempt at trying to turn this into a moral
issue only proves how weak your argument really is.

"deliberately" misleading, or just "mistakely but honestly to the best
of my memory" misleading. There's a difference.

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

They must be lawyers. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Are you saying people are not entitled to mount a vigorous defense of
themselves even though they are complying with the letter of the law?

I support any vigorous defense that does not include lying. Any
vigorous defense that involves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, and these conditions do not include lying or
deliberately and knowingly misleading. Most people learn that before
the first grade; Clinton hasn't learned it yet.
Are you saying that it is OK to lie in legal proceedings???????
May you be sued by a bunch of people who have your standards.

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.

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.

I'm really starting to enjoy your silly games. By all means continue.

Only
in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.
In the US, it wouldn't have been a court matter except it became
evidentiary in the legal proceedings that were going on for years.

Which doesn't justify subverting the political system, the civil system, and
the criminal system over a hummer.