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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
24. The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.
Sun May 31, 2015, 08:44 PM
May 2015
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."

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 Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

He was impeached for perjury and lost his Arkansas license to practice law merrily May 2015 #1
Pretending the goal was not to "get em" is not in keeping with facts either. laserhaas May 2015 #2
I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him. merrily May 2015 #4
You are technically correct... Whiskeytide May 2015 #46
Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate merrily May 2015 #49
Sure it was totally correct Major Nikon Jun 2015 #55
He's not technically correct Major Nikon Jun 2015 #54
It was the years of witch hunts that soured many of us madokie May 2015 #3
All the more reason not to have given them grounds. nt merrily May 2015 #5
Hastert just got busted on lying, too. treestar May 2015 #6
You betcha. Hypocrisy here, hypocrisy there. E-I-E-I-O. merrily May 2015 #7
Perjury IS lying under oath horseshoecrab May 2015 #8
No shit, but ordinary lying is not a crime. Perjury is. merrily May 2015 #9
Pres. Clinton = Never Convicted horseshoecrab May 2015 #10
Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for merrily May 2015 #11
here's a clue! horseshoecrab May 2015 #12
No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court. merrily May 2015 #15
You have no idea what you're talking about horseshoecrab May 2015 #17
Again, google and read for comprehension. merrily May 2015 #44
the Jones case was dismissed because horseshoecrab May 2015 #18
Absolutely wrong jberryhill May 2015 #42
Clinton pays $850,000. merrily May 2015 #45
Did you read it? jberryhill Jun 2015 #57
Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying merrily Jun 2015 #58
You have no idea what you're talking about Major Nikon Jun 2015 #61
articles of impeachment are charges. THEY ARE NOT PROOF OF GUILT horseshoecrab May 2015 #13
STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath. merrily May 2015 #14
I could have sworn you said "perjury" Major Nikon May 2015 #47
Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see. merrily May 2015 #50
Neither did you ever admit it wasn't perjury Major Nikon Jun 2015 #51
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
Perjury is more than lying under oath Major Nikon May 2015 #20
Thanks for this as well Major Nikon horseshoecrab May 2015 #23
Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things. merrily May 2015 #31
They did not Major Nikon May 2015 #40
Stop lying jberryhill May 2015 #43
Yes, it was a witch hunt loyalsister May 2015 #16
No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in merrily May 2015 #21
Wrong Major Nikon May 2015 #19
Thank you Major Nikon! n/t horseshoecrab May 2015 #22
You can thank him for coming to your aid, but he's wrong. merrily May 2015 #27
Perhaps Major Nikon May 2015 #32
Actually I answered it many times over. And disproved your claims merrily May 2015 #37
You answered it once and it was completely hilarious Major Nikon May 2015 #39
The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that. merrily May 2015 #24
So if it were perjury, why wasn't he ever criminally prosecuted for it? Major Nikon May 2015 #25
OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then. merrily May 2015 #26
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes, BTW Major Nikon May 2015 #28
Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the merrily May 2015 #29
Ah yes, a clever repackaging of the tired old, "I'm rubber, you're glue" Major Nikon May 2015 #30
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
Again, read for comprehension. You got all the info any reasonable person merrily May 2015 #36
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
Republicans impeached Clinton for personal financial gain. KentuckyWoman May 2015 #48
Amen.... laserhaas Jun 2015 #56
lying under oath, which is perjury. ...nt quadrature Jun 2015 #59
All perjury is lying under oath Major Nikon Jun 2015 #60
he wasn't forced to answer the q.... that is what bothers me....nt quadrature Jun 2015 #63
He actually was forced to answer them to a Grand Jury Major Nikon Jun 2015 #64
not at all . there was no waterboard or gun pointed at him ...nt quadrature Jun 2015 #65
Sure, if you discount the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt Major Nikon Jun 2015 #66
not at all. he(BC) would have fought it out ... quadrature Jun 2015 #67
Don't forget to lump Henry Hyde in with the hypocrites n/t deutsey Jun 2015 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gingrich, Livingston &...»Reply #24