further evidence that Rick Santorum doesn't represent the GOP
 

I'm sure Scaife will be paying someone to do that.

Journalists and partisans can and will keep a story alive by asking these questions, as dumb as they are. I was just crediting Santorum's spokesperson, who gave a classy answer. And I think it's too bad that TAPPED suggested he said that only because of political heat.

BTW, Rove was lying when he attributed that "moderate and restrained" thing to MoveOn.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

I agree with that. I was thinking along the lines of some sort of gross incompetence or something.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

Again, for the non-litigator, in a deposition, what is the "privacy" objection to a question or line of questions arguably designed to obtain relevant information?



back when this was fresh, 20/20, I believe (i think it was Cathryn Crier) did a story on people who were actually prosecuted for perjury in very similar (except for the president aspect) circumstances. I can't remember the facts but I recall the story profiled 2 or 3 people who actually served time for very similar perjurious events, eg: they lied about what could be characterized as irrelevant affairs in depos or on the stand.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

Real-world question, not legal question. A gentleman never tells, as Slave reminds us every day.

can you supply the denominator?

further evidence that the Liberal MSM is corrupt
 

He should resign or apologize, but I am not holding my breath.

I wonder the MSM did not pick this up the way they have the Rove story?

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

I don't know what the law is on this, but I have instructed a witness not to answer a question in a deposition about where she lived because she was being stalked -- unrelated to the case -- and didn't want her address in the public record. When I explained this to the other attorney, he was initially difficult about it, but after a couple of minutes decided he could live without it.

The people deposing Clinton were not interesting in being reasonable. They were using the litigation as a means to harass a sitting President.

Baseball players hit 70 home runs in a season all the time. Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire have done it in the last few years.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

They did get a ruling from the judge on relevance though.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

The arena was not the real world, it was the courts, so the analysis should have been a legal one. It's not polite to ask a women her age (according to adage) but that's not a bar a woman can raise to having to answer it on the stand if it is relevant.


You asked Had someone other than Clinton given the same testimony in similar circumstances

My answer to that question is yes. My back up is that at the time, a news organization apparently invented your question and sought to answer it themselves. I can only assume that there sample was huge, but it doesn't change the fact that the answer is yes, there are those someones, all of whom, like Clinton, were unfortunate enough to have been the exceptions.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

As far as I know he was never convicted of Perjury. He wasn't even disbarred.
Following this logic anyone who pays a lot for their defense should get off.
I disagree with their decision, but the Supreme Court overwhelmingly said it was OK.
But that is irrelevant to the perjury. The laws surrounding perjury, as far as I know, don't say that perjury is OK for the defendant if the plaintiff has a weak case.
The judge thought it was relevant. Isn't that the only opinion that matters? So if you are appealing a perjury charge can you claim - well I lied under oath but the judge was wrong in thinking that the questions asked were relevant.
Why is that relevant. It is the legal system. There was case precedence that said that in a sexual harassment suit a plaintiff can ask the defendant about their past sexual relations with other employees. Why is it relevant what people think about that precedent?
I don't see why this is relevant. It is still perjury

I think if it was conclusively discovered that someone was lying - then yes. Do you remember that woman that testified at the congressional hearings who was working in a federal hospital who lied under oath about an affair with an employee and she was given a jail sentence? At the time of her testimony she was under probation and had location tag around her leg.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

1) I was going off of Spanky's syllogism, which related to impeachment, not a trial for perjury in teh courts.

2) Yes, they exist. But if the percent is 1 or 100, then the claims of improper motivation for the impeachment might be bolstered or weakened accordingly.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

True. Germane to an impeachment vote, perhaps, if not to perjury.

I seem to recall that the ruling had some definitions of terms that made what Clinton said plausibly accurate, if clearly mendacious in the ordinary context. Do I recall this wrong?

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

100% A+

further evidence that Rick Santorum doesn't represent the GOP
 

2

I don't think anyone is denying those actual words came from Pariser's own petition, prior to his work with MoveOn. It was also primarily for this work - it has been said - that he was recruited to work for MoveOn. The Tapped article you quote hardly refutes that they had ties prior to 2002.

I'm trying to find the words to MoveOn's own "Justice, Not Terror" petition, but its been removed from their website.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

However, in this case the judge was sitting right there to determine if the question was relevant. The deposition concerned the sexual harassment law suit, not the impeachment. So the information was ruled relevent to the law suit.

The gravity of Clinton's lies.
 

hey now!!!!