Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

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.

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.

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. 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.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


"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.


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.

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. 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.


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 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.

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.

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, ...
Read the link. It was Clinton who perverted the truth, and found
loopholes to pervert the system.