Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

This video clip is pretty good. IMHO, as always.

He could have left out the bear stuff but ist still funny.

Posted by Bill White at March 11, 2007 08:23 AM

Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury?

When?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 09:04 AM

That was a mistake. He lied in a deposition in a federal civil lawsuit (he also intimidated and bribed witnesses, and suborned perjury from others). The penalty is the same.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 09:08 AM

I think that a key difference between the two is that Mr. Clinton was acquitted and Mr. Libby was convicted. And I am not certain, having been in the middle of my residency at the time, that the intimidation and bribery allegations are included in the obstruction charge - I do recall something about a false affadavit though.

Personally I favored removing him from office at the time, but he was acquitted by the Senate.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at March 11, 2007 10:23 AM

The Senate is not the same as a federal jury, Jane. Libby had a real trial, with live witnesses and cross examination, and (at least theoretically) unbiased jurors. The Senate "trial" was a farce, and meaningless (in terms of his actual guilt or innocence), other than that a political decision was made to leave him in office because he was politically popular, and the Dow was high.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 10:26 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 09:08 AM

Big difference in doing it in a civil deposition and testimony before a Grand Jury.

When it goes before the Grand Jury The People are a participant in the case.

Lying in a federal civil case where the people are not a plantiff is almost never prosecuted for perjury by the State.

Figure that out and you will know the difference...or at least one of them.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 12:00 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 10:26 AM

nor is a case where The People are not a party even remotly similar to a case where The People are a party.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 12:02 PM

Lying in a federal civil case where the people are not a plantiff is almost never prosecuted for perjury by the State.

The states have nothing to do with federal proceedings.

And Clinton was, actually, called before a grand jury, wherein the perjury in the sworn deposition was brought out.

Posted by McGehee at March 11, 2007 12:46 PM

Lying in a federal civil case where the people are not a plantiff is almost never prosecuted for perjury by the State.

Tell this woman. She lost her license to practice psychiatry, and did six months of home detention, because she lied. About sex. She was prosecuted by King William's Justice Department.

Give it up, Robert.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 01:20 PM

I said this before but, Libby lied when he didn't have to. And as much as I think the whole Plame kerfuffle was manufactured, what he did was plain stupid.

Clinton lying just meant his lips were moving.

Posted by Steve at March 11, 2007 02:18 PM

Was this a worse lie?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/why_we_went_to__1.html

Posted by at March 11, 2007 05:01 PM

"He lied in a deposition in a federal civil lawsuit"

No, he didn't. The GOP-funded plaintiff's attorneys gave him a definition of sexual relations that didn't involve oral, then tried to portray an accurate response as perjury for violating common sense.

They had to engage in the most preposterous, Kafka-esque chicanery to get any semblance of a case against him, spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process, and then brought the nation to a standstill grandstanding about "moral authority" while their mistresses and staff laughed in the wings.

"he also intimidated and bribed witnesses"

No, that would be the Starr Chamber cabal. They could always count on people like you to repeat whatever lies they manufactured, acting as a volunteer PR hit squad to assassinate the characters of witnesses who wouldn't lie for them.

"and suborned perjury from others"

He did nothing of the sort. I know the continued popularity of Bill Clinton must irk you no end, especially with the spectacular failure of the Divine Leader's messianic murder spree, but this propaganda of yours is a dead parrot a la Python.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 11, 2007 05:29 PM

And Clinton was, actually, called before a grand jury, wherein the perjury in the sworn deposition was brought out.

Posted by McGehee at March 11, 2007 12:46 PM...

"the State" was to imply The Nation, the Federal Government etc...

the Federal Government prosecutorial guidelines do not really advocate prosecution on perjury in civil federal cases for which "the state" (meaning The United States) are not a plaintiff.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 05:37 PM

Rand...pay attention...

OK read, slowly
After Battalino, a psychiatrist in Boise. Idaho, lied to U.S. attorneys about sex during a civil de.position, the Department of Justice prosecuted her. On April 13, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno charged Battalino with obstruction of justice and on April 14, Battalino pleaded guilty. "

OK lets go slow. The salient phrase is "lied to US attorneys".

Got it...there WERE NO US ATTORNEY's IN THE CLINTON CASE.

REPEAT...IN JONES vrs CLINTON THERE WERE NO US ATTORNEYS...

so my point is valid. THE US (the state) rarely if ever prosecutes perjury charges when THE UNITED STATES is not a party...JUST AS IN THE CLINTON CASE.

Lets try again (LOL) THE UNITED STATES WAS A PARTY TO THE CASE YOU MENTIONED...IT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE OF JONESvCLINTON.

UNDERSTAND THAT RAND and you get it...

RAHHH

Robert
"

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 05:40 PM

If "one" can get the salient feature that Rand and others continually miss...IE the US being a party to Scooter's grand jury testimony and NOT being a party to the Jones V Clinton case...

then one understands why Scooter is going to lock up and Clinton stayed President...

And one also understands WHY Clinton's testimony in the MAP room with the special prosecutors was so well...dreadfully clever.

Clinton, smarter and somewhat more clever then all the attorney's in that room particularly the idiots from the Starr office just literally danced legal rings around the everyone.

"Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is"...it is just a legal masterpiece of holding your opposition at bay and pistol whipping them.

Of course Clinton mislead the country, but he idd it legally cleverly (grin)...

And Ken STarr was just hopeless.

What political theater...and that was the day that public opinon started shifting against removing Clinton...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 05:48 PM

The earlier un-named post:

Posted by at March 11, 2007 05:01 PM

is pretty scary. I can't see why Novak would be lying. He is after all a well respected conservative journalist. May be someday we will find out. This is the kind of stuff that makes you think that even if THIS case was about nothing much, there is a much BIGGER phantom in the closet.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 11, 2007 05:54 PM

Rand...all joking aside (and I hope you took it that way)...there is an enormous moral difference in a free state in lying in a civil case between two individuals and lying to agents of the state...the latter simply cannot be tolerated...

particularly in Libby's case when he is an actor of a free state.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 06:10 PM

Robert, I see that you continue to ignore the black-letter fact that perjury in a civil case is just as bad as perjury in a criminal case under federal law, in terms of penalty. We all understand, because of your repetition, that you don't think that people are entitled to fair trials in federal civil law suits, even when the person being sued is the person who signed the law under which he is being sued.

We now know where you stand. The president is King, and subject to no law.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 06:43 PM

Clarification to above post: "They" in second paragraph refers to both the Jones attorneys and subsequent Starr prosecutors, not only the Jones attorneys.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 11, 2007 07:10 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 11, 2007 06:43 PM

Rand.

In terms of penalty they are the same. But they are not the same in terms of the actual prosecution of the law and the findings of fact concerning a free state.

The President is not King, he/she is subject to the laws and to make sure that they are faithfully upheld. That goes for his actors as well.

I differentiate enormously between a lawsuit brought as a political nuisance by partisan actors AND a lawsuit by the "state" (AKA the People) against an official of "the state".

What clinton did is bad, what Libby did strikes at the core of our Republic.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 07:27 PM

"He did nothing of the sort. I know the continued popularity of Bill Clinton must irk you no end, especially with the spectacular failure of the Divine Leader's messianic murder spree, but this propaganda of yours is a dead parrot a la Python."

Brian Swiderski

Talk about propaganda, you've got Maryscott O'Conner thing down pretty good.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 11, 2007 07:29 PM

Seriously, when Clinton lied on TV by saying "I did not have sexual relation with that woman", he lied to me and everyone in the country. If you want to support someone who would lie right to your face, go ahead. And, before you give me the "Bush lied, people died" crap, he didn't lie.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 11, 2007 07:36 PM

Bill.

Yes with "this" I am in agreement.

If there was "anything" impeachable that warranted removal in my view it was Clinton "lying" to the nation in that press conference.

In that moment Clinton made a conscious decision, facing the only "jury" that really matters to misstate events to The Public. That was an abysmal breakage of the public trust and honor.

He could and should have chosen a much different path, which was to tell the American people what happened, that he had had an affair of some nature with Ms. Lewinsky and then asked forgiveness....and I predict (with some basis in history) that the American people would have said "OK" and moved on.

Ronaldus the Great did as much with the arms for hostages thing. He faced a tough decision, he summoned up his courage and said essentially "Yeah that is what was being done" and the American people said "OK" and moved on.

If we start removing Presidents everytime they make a political decision to "lie" to the people no matter the magnitude of it, then well, we are going to have a lot of people "Not finish terms"...

Including the current one.

but to your point, yes it is tragic, a complete breakage of trust with the soverign that Mr. Clinton chose to mislead (lie) to the American people.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 08:02 PM

"Talk about propaganda, you've got Maryscott O'Conner thing down pretty good."

A non-insulting insult wrapped in a non sequitur. Good job, Aristotle.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 11, 2007 08:54 PM

How is that a non sequitur? What you wrote is VERY similar to what she has written in the past and will probably write in the future too.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 11, 2007 09:25 PM

"He could and should have chosen a much different path, which was to tell the American people what happened, that he had had an affair of some nature with Ms. Lewinsky and then asked forgiveness....and I predict (with some basis in history) that the American people would have said "OK" and moved on."

No, if he had admitted the truth, then he would have been facing rape charges. The whole Lewinsky scandal came to light as a result of prosecutors trying to establish a pattern of behavior on Clinton's part, of him using his political power to coerce sexual favors from subordinates. With that pattern established, the character assassination of Paula Jones would be exposed for what it was, and Clinton would have been facing charges of raping Juanita Broaddrick.

The Clinton case wasn't about sex, it was about rape. It's too bad that his defenders to this day cannot see that.

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 11, 2007 10:48 PM

"How is that a non sequitur?"

The part about Maryscott O'Connor writing "propaganda"--I can't seem to find any by her. Her photo may be unfairly persuasive, but other than that her site is a standard blog.

"What you wrote is VERY similar to what she has written in the past and will probably write in the future too."

Well, let's tally the similarities, shall we?
1. Liberal.
2. Ability to write coherent English.

Yes, I'm clearly her soulmate.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 11, 2007 11:22 PM

There is an enormous moral difference in a free state in lying in a civil case between two individuals and lying to agents of the state...the latter simply cannot be tolerated...

God forbid such an insane dehumanizing philosophy should ever become generally held. I can't imagine anything more degrading to the idea of popular sovereignty than that citizens owe a higher duty to keep the promises they make to The State than that they make to each other.

You might as well go right back to the worst of the Dark Ages and say that while breaking trust with your fellow citizen is bad, breaking trust with the king or pope is a mortal sin. Or you can go less far back, to the horrors of Stalinism, in which also allegiance to an all-important True Cause was supposed to trump every personal bond, promise, or feeling of fellowship. This is a recipe for turning people into cogs in a soulless machine and not in the least, I think, what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.

I don't know about you, but there's never a time when I consider The People in the abstract to be more important than people as actual living individuals. I'd be disgusted to find myself thinking it was less morally reprehensible to lie to my friends and neighbors than to the government or its agents.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 12, 2007 12:03 AM

I differentiate enormously between a lawsuit brought as a political nuisance by partisan actors AND a lawsuit by the "state" (AKA the People) against an official of "the state".

Yes, we know you do. You'll do anything to rationalize your irrational defense of Bill Clinton.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2007 04:08 AM

The Clinton case wasn't about sex, it was about rape. It's too bad that his defenders to this day cannot see that.

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 11, 2007 10:48 PM..

That is simply not accurate. "prosecutors" what a joke. The people working the Jones V Clinton case were not "prosecutors" they were civil attorneys.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 06:03 AM

Posted by Carl Pham at March 12, 2007 12:03 AM

I would be more impressed with your thoughts if you were critical of some of the misstatements made by this administration.

Since you are not I would just note this. YOu obviously dont know any couple that has gone through a messy divorce case in court. Each side is "lying" to some degree.

Just like Clinton

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 06:05 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2007 04:08 AM

Rand.

If you were remotly factual about the case OR remotly equal in your criticism of the "misstatements" out of this administration then your point of viwe might have more cause to be taken seriously.

But since I am routinly attacked by the extremes on the other side of the political aisle for demanding that Bush and his administration be treated fairly, I dont put much stock in your complaint...at least on this.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 06:07 AM

If you were remotly factual about the case

I have been scrupulously factual about the case, Robert. It is you who are living in an alternate reality. And I'd be more concerned about "misstatements" by the Bush administration if so many others, including many people now criticizing them for such "misstatements" weren't making very similar ones at the time. And "misstatements" aren't deliberate perjury, or subornation of perjury.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2007 06:14 AM

Let's parse this a little more for you. "Divine Leader's messianic murder spree" Most reasonable people reading a statement like that aren't going to pay a lot of attention to the rest of your message. Then we have this from O'Connor, Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist". This is more than just liberal. The language may be coherent, I'm just not sure about the message.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 12, 2007 07:44 AM

I would be more impressed with your thoughts if you were critical of some of the misstatements made by this administration.

Ah? Well, I'd be more impressed with your thoughts if you...wait a minute, let me think of something bizarrely irrelevant, too....if you...um...if you wore size 44 checked pants!

Posted by Carl Pham at March 12, 2007 01:14 PM

Well, I'd be more impressed with your thoughts if you...wait a minute, let me think of something bizarrely irrelevant, too....if you...um...if you wore size 44 checked pants!

Hey, c'mon, Carl, give him the benefit of the doubt! How do you know he doesn't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2007 01:17 PM

Posted by Carl Pham at March 12, 2007 01:14 PM

thoughtful response.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 07:25 PM

Bill: "Let's parse this a little more for you. "Divine Leader's messianic murder spree"..."

"Divine Leader" is intended to mock the attitude of his devoted supporters, which for several years was defined by violently fanatical blind faith; meeting the slightest peep of criticism or hint of doubt with character assassination, propaganda barrages, and even death threats.

Whatever he said, no matter how absurd on its face to even the most credible and respected people, was taken as the *definition* of truth by these maniacs--Bush was indeed their Divine Leader, so don't accuse me of propaganda for an accurate portrayal of their insanity.

Now, I call his conquest and destruction of Iraq "messianic" simply as a matter of fact. Whether he or his minions ever actually believed what they were doing involved "liberating" anyone isn't knowable, but their propaganda in the lead-up to the invasion is still available for anyone with a strong stomach to watch.

Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and various others in the regime and among its supporters insisted, on numerous occasions, that the invasion would create a "wave of freedom" cascading all across the Middle East, toppling dictators like dominoes, and America would be beloved in the region as liberators and models for the future of Arab civilization. All that stood in the way of this glorious future was Saddam's regime, international law since 1946, and a likely vast number of innocent people of all ages who would, regrettably, have to be sacrificed to realize it.

It was at this point that people inclined to thinking stopped asking how stupid and corrupt Bush's appointees were, and started wondering if the world's most powerful military had fallen into the hands of homicidal maniacs. Whatever doubt remained was removed on March 20, 2003.

Bill: "Most reasonable people reading a statement like that aren't going to pay a lot of attention to the rest of your message."

Moral outrage is not a sign of irrationality, but discounting a statement because it exhibits moral outrage certainly is.

Bill: "Then we have this from O'Connor, Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"."

He is malevolent, his behavior is clearly that of a sociopath, and one could easily argue (in literary terms) that his values are virtually the opposite of those ascribed to Christ. Unless what you're saying is that she doesn't adequately explain her conclusions, then I don't see how you can label accurate observations "propaganda."

It's not like the way Republicans say things 180 degrees off the plane of reality, accusing peace groups of supporting terrorism and comparing Amnesty International to the Khmer Rouge: Calling Bush a malevolent sociopath is a reasonable conclusion based on his actions, and "Antichrist," while hyperboleic, describes the values suggested by his behavior.

Do you not consider it "Antichrist-like" to go around making speeches about freedom and liberty while having people tortured, declaring yourself the "inherent authority" to determine what is and is not the law, who does and does not have rights, what fundamental human rights can be ignored, and all the other outrages this man routinely commits or supports? Reasonable people wouldn't begrudge the obvious just to avoid acknowledging a disheartening fact about America's recent history.

Bill: "This is more than just liberal."

How so?

Bill: "The language may be coherent, I'm just not sure about the message."

The thing about liberals to understand is that we don't spoon feed people, we talk about facts and expect (quite naively) that others simply know how to use them to draw conclusions. While I can't speak for other liberals, my message about Bush boils down to a few key points, in no particular order:

1. His voters should have known better.
2. They should take responsibility for the consequences of their ignorance and shallowness.
3. Bush and all directly complicit in his regime's crimes must be impeached (if applicable) and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 12, 2007 11:10 PM

As long as they pay their taxes, why should it matter what Hollywood and publishers payed them?

Posted by Adrasteia at March 13, 2007 02:31 AM

valerie plame had an interesting career,

CIA agent working undercover, travelling the mideast
chasing down nuke programs,
married to a noted ambassador,
career ruined by a series of white house leaks that run to
the VP

paula jones is a HS dropout, with a weenie story
juanita broderick has nothing more then a claimed
act of rape.

Posted by anonymous at March 15, 2007 07:48 AM

Post a comment