Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gingrich, Livingston & Hastert Impeached Clinton for What? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)24. The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm
The Arkansas Supreme Court that suspended his license found the same thing. It was NOT voluntary. The bar association or whatever the correct title is wanted it taken away and the court fucking agreed. Bar association do NOT do this lightly, any more than a cop turns in another cop lightly, let alone when the fellow lawyer was former Governor of Arkansas and a then sitting President. He had a choice, his ONLY choice, between surrendering his license for five years or getting disbarred permanently. That's not "voluntary" surrender."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
He lied on TV while giving grand jury testimony. There is no question he lied under oath. . He later admitted to the nation that he had. Ergo, the burden of proof is irrelevant.
This stuff is not poetry. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. There are court opinions out there, videostapes, sworn depositions by Clinton in which he lied, newspaper stories. You know, actual facts and actual evidence.
The Arkansas Supreme Court that suspended his license found the same thing. It was NOT voluntary. The bar association or whatever the correct title is wanted it taken away and the court fucking agreed. Bar association do NOT do this lightly, any more than a cop turns in another cop lightly, let alone when the fellow lawyer was former Governor of Arkansas and a then sitting President. He had a choice, his ONLY choice, between surrendering his license for five years or getting disbarred permanently. That's not "voluntary" surrender."
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.
In the end, Independent Counsel Ray said:
"The Independent Counsels judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clintons admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
He lied on TV while giving grand jury testimony. There is no question he lied under oath. . He later admitted to the nation that he had. Ergo, the burden of proof is irrelevant.
This stuff is not poetry. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. There are court opinions out there, videostapes, sworn depositions by Clinton in which he lied, newspaper stories. You know, actual facts and actual evidence.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him.
merrily
May 2015
#4
Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate
merrily
May 2015
#49
Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for
merrily
May 2015
#11
No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court.
merrily
May 2015
#15
Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying
merrily
Jun 2015
#58
STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath.
merrily
May 2015
#14
Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see.
merrily
May 2015
#50
Again, it met all the elements of perjury. I cannot read anyone's mind to tell you why
merrily
Jun 2015
#52
Sure, Starr just didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he wasn't in the mood...or something
Major Nikon
Jun 2015
#53
Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things.
merrily
May 2015
#31
No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in
merrily
May 2015
#21
The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.
merrily
May 2015
#24
OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then.
merrily
May 2015
#26
Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the
merrily
May 2015
#29
All three elements you described above were met. So held both the Paula Jones court
merrily
May 2015
#33
So your argument is that Starr didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he exercised discretion
Major Nikon
May 2015
#35
Sure he was completely guilty of perjury, but curiously was never so much as indicted
Major Nikon
May 2015
#38
To justify the never ending perpetually expanding expensive witch hunt they had against him
Johonny
May 2015
#34
Clintons approval ratings during the impeachment were higher than St. Ronnie's ever were
Major Nikon
May 2015
#41