Holder commits perjury, but still is a free man

I stand corrected each side had three days to present their case.

They only had three days and were not allowed to call witnesses. The trial was a sham.

 

He plead to the Special Prosecutor and accept without protest the contempt ruling effectively pleading guilty to it.

Sure you can.

He admitted his guilt in the plea and did not fight the contempt holding. Of course he had no choice he had no defense.

Your now down to making silly little arguments trying to avoid the big picture. Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court. He should have been force out of office by his own party al la Nixon. That not being the case he should have been removed from office and then Gore would have been President.

That fact is the Democrat party prostituted it's position on protecting women in the work place for him and it was shameful.

 

The only one confused is you, I cited a law journal, you have nothing.

Bennett asked CLINTON DIRECTLY, he lied under oath. He asked Clinton if the affidavit was true he said yes, he lied under oath.

Even after the definition of sexual relations was established, he lied under those definitions.

And you are being disingenuous since I am not referencing that conversation. Read Judge Wright's ruling, he lied under oath.

Their judgement goes no further than remove or not, and as many including those who wanted to censure him, believing he committed that acts does not require them to vote to remove him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
He had no defense. Already cited the federal rules...

Cited the Judges ruling and correct a typo, you lost the point and you know it.

That's right and she did and he did not take graciuos offer for a hearing which she offered and he did not have a right to, he could appeal to a higher court, but he in effect pled guilty by accepting the contempt charge.

Same old facts, she issued it based on the law that he lied under oath. He plea bargained the criminal charge with Ray. If you think apply your hyperbole to it changes the facts I got a bridge to sell you.

Your phony conjecture does NOT trump the rulings or opinions or actions of the Judge and the Prosecutor.

I am one of the few who does you are one of the many who does not. You are left with asserting that 39 Senators wanted to censure Clinton for something they did not believe he did. That's the pretzel you have twisted yourself into.

Already cited the AP article, they disbarred him.

Already cited it.

Robert S. Bennett, who has represented Clinton throughout the Jones case, introduced the Lewinsky affidavit during the president's Jan. 17 deposition in an effort to cut off questioning about her. During the proceeding, Bennett told U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright that Lewinsky's statement meant "there was absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form," and asked Clinton to verify that.

"That's absolutely true," Clinton responded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones100998.htm

He committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Your tortured spin does not change those facts. He affirmed a false affidavit and had his attorney enter it into court, even under the agreed definition of sexual relations he lied, he did touch her breast and genitalia and she did touch his penis for the purpose of sexual gratification, they were alone, he did give he gifts and special favors.

Judge Wright concluded: ... there simply is no escaping the fact that the President deliberately violated this Court's discovery Orders and thereby undermined the integrity of the judicial system. Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the President's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the President of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, the Court adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) for his willful failure to obey this Court's discovery Orders and hereby orders the following: 1. The President shall pay plaintiff any reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this Court's discovery Orders. Plaintiff's former counsel are directed to submit to this Court a detailed statement of any expenses and attorney's fees incurred in connection with this matter within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 2. The President shall deposit into the registry of this Court the sum of $ 1,202.00, the total expenses incurred by this Court in traveling to Washington, D.C. at the President's request to preside over his January 17th deposition. In addition, the Court will refer this matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct for review and any action it deems appropriate.

There is simply no escaping it despite your baseless attempts to pretend otherwise.

 

Preference to remain ignorant of pertinent facts noted. Twice now, in this particular case.

LOL! Burlington was about vicarious liability in a corporate environment. Jones had no case on either quid-pro-quo or hostile environment grounds. The Burlington decision did not suddenly create one for her. And you might want to look at the contemporaneous case of Gebser v Lago Vista ISD for a peak into the Court's views on public sector harassment.

No, there is in fact no law or case whatsoever establishing that a plaintiff's unsubstantiated profession of fear is sufficient for a finding against anyone for anything.

Flying in the face of the facts without a license.

Obviously, you have never read her deposition. She made herself into a laughingstock. She was a complete and utter failure.

She was a ditzoid. She barely HAD a version of events that she could relate consistently twice within ten minutes. When you are asked if you have related a story to anyone, anyone INCLUDES your spouse. Too deep for Pammy, though.

Jones was agreeable to the visit. She and Ferguson (whom she'd already spent time in friendly chat with earlier in the day) rode the elevator up to the President's floor together. Jones then went alone down the hall and into Clinton's suite.

Blather. Such might constitute an example of favoritism, but it does not so much as approach harassment.

There weren't any.

No, quoting from Judge Wright's grant of Clinton's request for summary judgment. Guess you haven't seen that either.

You are fortunate not to be under oath.

As we have seen with a signficant degree of clarity, you are totally lost when it comes to reciting the legal tests for perjury, and you have not been aware of much regarding actual questions asked and answered.

Bennett: In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this: “I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, nor did he propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.” Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know?
Clinton: That is absolutely true.

While some may not have the intellect necessary to comprehend it, it would have been entirely possible for Clinton to have thought at the end of a long and arduous day that Bennett was actually asking him if it were true that that's what was said in paragraph eight of the affidavit. Had that been the case, Clinton would not have been obligated in any way to add the words, That's exactly what she says in paragraph eight.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted again.

Exactly as a note and support by a law journal cite.

Lack of rebuttal noted.

Already cited and remains unrefutted.

Lack of rebuttal noted.

Lack of rebuttal noted.

She was told the governor wanted to meet with her and she assumed it was about a job or her work, she was on the job you know.

Nope, if an employer gives special favors and conditions to employees who give them sexual favors that constitutes a hostile work environment.

If you don't know the legal test then go educate yourself, I don't have that problem and you have failed to even attempt to present a case that it was not perjury. He affirmed a false affidavit, that is perjury.

And they did have a sexual relationship. Clinton's OWN ATTORNEY informed the court the affidavit was false.

You aren't going to actually attempt such a stupid argument are you. He's on tape and knew exactly what was asked and answered it. Bennett couldn't have been clearer as already cited and as the Judge ruled. You lose again.

 

Counsel has obviously already advised the witness (to the point of hitting him over the head with a baseball bat) to do exactly that. Adversarial MEANS non-cooperative. Some don't get the point.

 

That's interesting. Your quote comes from 2000 when your cite for it is from 1999. The quote also does not come from lawyer Joyelle Werner, but from radical feminist social worker Ketayun Gould. You should learn to be more careful when playing around with Google.

Meanwhile, you've apparently not read ANY of the depositions, orders, or other materials pertinent to this case. You appear to have read a bunch of right-wing nonsense and simply swallowed that. Nonsense is your story, and you're sticking to it!

 

As already pointed out he asked Clinton directly, Clinton had read the affidavit and Bennett subsequent had to inform the court it was false.

 

Copyright (c) 1999 Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University
Mercer Law Review

Your attempts to play lawyer fail once again. Burlington played a key role in her refiling her lawsuit and Clinton settled because he had no defense.

Ruling may have effect on Paula Jones lawsuit

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear a case which is expected to have an effect on Paula Jones' lawsuit against President Bill Clinton.

Kimberly Ellerth is suing Burlington Industries, because she said her supervisor allegedly made sexual advances on her, saying he could make her job "very hard or very easy."

The company however, says that since Ellerth suffered no retaliation for rejecting her supervisors advances, the company cannot be held liable.

A federal judge in the Paula Jones case ruled earlier said that an employee can only collect damages if they suffer from on the job retaliation.

A victory by Ellerth in this case could have an effect on that ruling.

http://ogb.wfu.edu/back_issues/1998_Spring/04-23-98/News/dn.worldwides.html

There was a victory, the Jones attorney's refiled. Clinton settled he had no defense.

 

It was his own lawyer, Clinton affirmed a false affidavit and specifically where it stated there was no sexual contact at all.

But do quote where Bennett informed the court HIS client would be treated as a hostile witness.

 

Tell it to Andrew Jackson.

S.RES. 44 was sponsored by Diane Feinstein with 37 cosponsors who believed that things like inappropriate relationships with a subordinate employee in the White House and deliberately misleading and deceiving the American people were examples of unacceptable behavior that demeaned the office of President as well as the President himself, and that for these actions, he was deserving of formal censure. The bill was refered to the Senate Rules Committee where it died.

Well, you've been deep-sixed on so many other issues, might as well just go down with the ship on this one as well. Glug, glug, glug...

 

Only in conservative bizarro world is answering an ambiguous question ambiguously in a deposition "affirming a false affidavit".

I love it when conservative try to use legal talk.

In any case, Clinton at that point had survived the impeachment circus and was back on top. He didn't want to waste his time fighting to keep a license he'd never have to use again. So he just dumped it.

If Clinton had fought there is no doubt in any attorenys' mind that he would have prevailed. It's not even close. Witnesses in deposition have no duty to help inept counsel phrase their bizarro questions.

Have you by the way read the question at issue. It's hilarious.

 

Here's the weirdness of the GOP charges against Clinton. Pure buffoonery.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html

There's more but it's even sillier conservative doubletalk. I'll spare Blue. He probably never bothered to read any of this, so he's just another willing victim of the Rightwing Noise Machine.

 

Robert Ray was Independent Counsel, not Special Prosecutor. In that capacity, he did not charge Clinton with anything. As you should know by now, there is no plea to be entered in civil matters, and there is NO SUCH THING as "effectively" pleading guilty to anything.

No, there is no such thing. There is no case to point in which any defendant has entered any plea to any charge that had not yet been brought against him.

He had every defense and would very likely have prevailed had he chosen to contest Judge Wright's opinion. But this would have come only at the cost of much time, money, and publicity. Cost-benefit was not making the fight look very worthwhile.

There was of course no such thing as any "plea" in which to admit anything, and there was no admission of any sort in the settlement agreement either. There is only this benefit-of-hindsight retrospective suggesting that looking back on things in the light of all he has learned and come to know and understand since, he might have made some statements back then that he would judge to have been false today. Of course, lots of folks won't understand the signficance in that.

No, I'm still pointing out that your oafish claims have no basis in actual fact.

False until you can substantiate it, which of course you can't. All you can do is repeat the claim...over and over and over again. As if that were going to help your case.

Laughable homage to vigilantism and partisan mob-justice. Much to your increasingly evident chagrin, you have to actually prove things in this country.

Strawman. Protecting women in the workplace does not involve allowing women with no valid claim of harassment whose suit is being driven solely by the money and venom of hard right-wing industrialists and America-haters to prevail against the plain facts and common sense. You binary thinkers are so alike.

 

Pleading "guilty" in a civil case?

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

More confusion from the Clintonphobes.

 

The quote you included and highlighted was not taken from your law journal. It was taken from the May 2000 issue of the journal Social Work. The article it was taken from includes no discussion whatsoever of any of the legal implications of Burlington v Ellerth and why those should have mattered one wit to Paula Jones. This was another random google-hit.

This is totally false and has conclusively been shown to be so.

His answer was entirely accurate under that definition -- i.e., the one he had been instructed to answer under.

False, as the transcript sequence cited abive includes the one and only occurence of the quote you posted earlier and falsely alleged Clinton to have affirmed. You've simply been toasted here once again for your false claims and are loathe to admit it.

Judgment succeeds upon conviction. There was no judgment in the Clinton trial, as he was not even nearly convicted of anything.

All Senators affirmed this oath:

Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?

How many do you claim then perjured themselves by their votes?

[NOTE: Others among the seriously confused might pay close attention to that wording...the trial of the impeachment. ]

Truthfulness is an absolute defense against a charge of perjury, and your rule citation has had to it rather more of a random element than what one might typically hope for. Actual Rules of Federal Civil Procedure as established in THIS country reduce your claims of dictatorial powers having been held by Judge Wright to so much useless rubble and refuse.

LOL. This was one of an ever-growing number of humiliating occassions on which your claims foundered upon the rocks of reality and abruptly sank.

 

You might wish to refer to 28 USC 636 regarding differences between criminal and civil contempt. In the latter case, the order-issuing court must itself and de novo review objections raised by an alleged contemnor and may uphold, vacate, or modify in whole or in part the original order. The separate right of appeal is of course inviolate under the 7th Amendment.

Lying under oath and perjury are not nearly the same thing. In either case, the conclusion rests upon judgments (and in this case, also probably improper orders) that that do not lie within Judge Wright's competence. Such conclusions are to be enforced only upon a finding that they are supported by the preponderance of evidence.

You don't in fact have a bridge, and you don't in fact seem either to have the wherewithal necessary to understand what a civil contempt order is when one is put in front of you. There were no criminal charges from anyone to be bargained over with Ray.

This would come under some Build Your Own Constitution heading. Your imaginary version of the document is without meaning of any sort in the broader world.

They were concerned with matters and conduct OTHER THAN perjury and obstruction of justice. There was no credible case to be made for either of those, as had been obvious from long before the impeachment trial began. There was ample evidence for other and unrelated conduct that fault might be found with.

He resigned. It was in all the papers...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Former President Bill Clinton, facing the possibility of being barred from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has resigned instead, his lawyer said Friday. David Kendall did not elaborate on why Clinton decided to resign. Clinton's resignation from the Supreme Court bar will have little practical impact. Clinton has not practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to argue any cases in the future.

Already shown to be completely false from the depositon transcripts. The exchanges claimed never in fact occurred. It doesn't matter whether you or some mistaken hack from the Washington Post makes the claim -- it is pure fiction and carries no weight whatsoever.

Unfortunately for you, none of these claims can be supported by anything more tangible than repeated doses of wild-eyed right-wing rant.

An independent trier of fact might well have found Judge Wright's words to have been prejudicial. She in fact had no power or authority to declare that there was no such escape until the validity of her orders had been reviewed and the facts purported to have comprised a violation of them had been established by the preponderance of evidence.

Oh, there are all sorts of bases behind my claims, as you so frequently and painfully have had to learn.

 

LOL. It's like a game of See-And-Say....The cow says: Moooo! Meanwhile the minutes of Judge Wright's clerk of court specifically state that the Judge advised Paula Jones to settle her suit as her case was unlikely to prove sufficient for trial. The matter is also covered in John Broder's summary of those minutes in the NY Times. The fact that you would prefer to pout in the corner than go read either of those sources does not make them go away.

You FALSIFIED your supposed law journal cite. Another example of fraud from your corner.

No, not even in la-la-land. If a profession of fear alone were sufficient to establish a case of harassment, we would not have any trials over the matter. Your impressions and claims from Burlington v Ellerth are just more examples of desperation and fraud.

None of which is disputed. She considered the invitation and decided to accept it. According to her own account, when the meeting turned out not to have been what she expected, she was free to leave and did.

LOL. Why labor on in such ignorance? Go learn at least the basics...

Definition of Hostile Work Environment

I'm quite familiar with the six tests that must be met in order to establish a case of perjury. You are not, being but a raw rookie still struggling with even the most basic elements of the law. Until you actually KNOW what perjury is, you cannot go around claiming to have found examples of it.

Again, any false statements made in Monica Lewinsky's affidavit are the legal responsibility of Monica Lewinsky. Neither Clinton nor Bennett would have any more culpability in the matter than you do.

No. I raised the matter precisely because it illustrates the sort of intellectual range and appreciation of language that one must have in order to examine testimony for truthfulness, for accuracy, for completeness, and so on. It is a job for one with a patient scalpel, not a wanton meat-axe.

No, you have fallen short of the necessary level of comprehension again, and by the way, both the tapes and the transcripts say exactly the same thing. There is not a case of perjury to be made against Clinton. Every statement he made under oath was legally accurate. Had he chosen to contest Judge Wright's civil contempt citation, she would have had to rule on that testimony de novo as part of an adversarial proceeding, with the threat of an appeal behind that for such tilting as her various orders have suggested. I would suppose that she issued the contempt citation with her fingers crossed in hopes that Clinton would not respond and only after gathering every sort of assurance that he in fact would not.

 

Bennett asked Clinton directly about the content of paragrpah eight in Lewinsky's affidavit HOURS AFTER the exchange between Bennett and Judge Wright that you want to link Clinton's later response to. This is yet another example of the knowing fraud upon which your entire worthless case actually hangs.

 

What happened to poor Ketayun Gould??? She was your star witness not so long ago, and now she has vanished completely!!! Do you have some sort of grudge against radical feminist social workers or something?

 

Hmmm. Another random Google-hit. And what effect would a decision for Ellerth have had? The crack reporters at the Wake Forest student newspaper don't actually say in their little mini-blurb because they don't actually know. You should follow their example sometime. The Supreme Court meanwhile decided four major cases related to sexual harassment during the term ended in 1998. They were a mixed bag.

The sheep says...Baaaa! The Jones attorneys couldn't have cared less about Paula Jones or about Kimberly Ellerth. All they cared about was their singular mission of attacking and/or destryoing Bill Clinton. Nothing else mattered to them. When they were done with Paula Jones and she was of no further value to them, they collected their legal fees and tossed her onto the side of the road like some redneck pig discarding an empty beer can.

Jones does have one regret about her role in the Clinton Impeachment saga, however. She claims she was used as a political pawn by conservatives out to get Clinton, charging that they pressured her to reject the first settlement offer.
-- TIME Magazine, 2008

Gee, a political pawn. Imagine that!

 

So far that is about all you have had to say here. As Judge Wright's ruling and the testimony itself clearly proves, he lied under oath, he committed perjury and there is nothing you have posted that shows otherwise. YOu just can't get around the affidavit and his falsely answering direct questions, even when you attempt to slant the facts. As far as Jones when you have a peer reviewed cite as I posted along with other evidence post it. Your hyperbole refutes nothing.

 

No, once again the passage that Bennett inquired about late in the day was this statement from paragraph eight of the Lewinsky affidavit. It quite clearly does not relate to any form of sexual contact at all.

I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, nor did he propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.

More difficulty with the vocabulary? Get it through your head that defendants at trial are not in any way at all obligated to assist the prosecution in the development of their case. This is a basic tenet of the American judicial system. It might be about time that you learned it.

 

No you are totally confused about the whole matter and I have cited Judge Wrights ruling in the matter. He was asked directly and he lied.

You have nothing. And it doesn't matter anyway, even under the definition they later agreed on, he lied.

The affidavit was false and he affirmed and he lied under direct questioning. It has been fully cited and you can't get around the facts with your simple baseless dismissals.

You simply can't escape the facts.

 

Hmmm. Check Wepner at about the 2:30 mark of Round-15 against Ali.

Haven't we seen (and disposed of) all this somewhere before?

Such claims are totally undone by the transcripts. The exchanges you claim never in fact occurred. Your evidence is counterfeit.

Oh, bad luck there. That's still just as completely false as the last time you tried to make the claim.

You don't have any facts. You have an assortment of manufactured frauds and counterfeits. Cut glasss and cheap paste. Nothing like the real thing. As we have seen, the transcripts don't support you, the clerk's minutes don't support you, the law -- from the Constitution down to the most basic of its definitions -- does not support you. You have nothing beyond devotions repetitively recited from a right-wing rosary.