On Sep 4, 10:22*am, "Mike" wrote:

Lawyers get paid to defend their clients within the letter of the law. *Just
because you are unwilling or unable to understand the law, doesn't mean it
was broken.

That's the best joke of the day! You should be a guest on Leno. Or a
witness for Clinton.
Lawyers get paid to win the case for their client, by any means
possible. They no longer have any obligation to present the truth,
the whole truth, or anything like the truth. Prior to going to
court, they will say, do, or threaten anything to get the opposition
to back down. Once in court, they will stretch, twist, or pervert the
truth, or come up with any alternative explanation OTHER than the
truth. Our courts are not about the truth any more (if ever), they
are mainly about presentation and obfuscation.

As evidence, I present both the OJ trials, and the Clinton
proceedings.


Do you have an example of a person who endured a 7 year, $100 million
partisan investigation with out so much as an indictment? *You still can't
come up with anything that approaches a reasonable explanation.

Do you have any evidence of anyone who got BJs in the oval office,
other than WJC?

Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur.
And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the
defense is also at play here.

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year
investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you?


Bill dragged it out? *You're kidding, right? *"Lots of his friends" included
no one in his administration and none of the charges involved any Clinton
business dealings. *

Quite a number of "friends of Bill" were convicted.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was
accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones.
The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your
definition of "is".
Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is,
and...."

Or maybe if you were more familiar with the facts of the case you could
speak from a position of intelligence rather than from a position of
ignorance. *The Jones lawyers provided the definition which was accepted by
the court. *That is a fact regardless of any semantic nonsense you want to
allege.

A person with common sense would realize that it was all the lawyers
and the courts who haggled over definitions. We the ordinary people
pretty much know the definitions of "is" and "sex".


Really? *The Jones lawsuit and the independent counsel investigation were
going full swing years before the Clinton deposition.
BINGO! See how he dragged all this stuff out? Had he behaved, or not
dragged it all out with his lies, the investigations never would have
proceeded to the bimbo eruptions and his immature antics in the oral
office.


I hate to break this to you, but everyone lies.
No excuse. And most get caught and pay the price and learn their
lesson.

*If making misleading
statements
Lying.

about an extramarital affair that was really nobody's business
It became the court's business when the information was related to the
sexual harrrassment lawsuit against him.
Regardless of the legal twisting, it is evident to most that he did
what the women claimed he did.

and never involved his official functions is the worst of his
transgressions,
Anything in the Oval Office of the President is official business, and
should be treated that way. Anyone who has an employer recognizes
that whatever is done at work is related to work, and you can be held
accountable.

that's not too bad historically speaking.
You set a very low bar for performance and behavior.

"deliberately" misleading, or just "mistakely but honestly to the best
of my memory" misleading. *There's a difference.

Not to the USSC. *Try reading the decision sometime.
Got a link? I'm in the mood for comic relief!

They must be lawyers. *Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Are you saying people are not entitled to mount a vigorous defense of
themselves even though they are complying with the letter of the law?

I support any vigorous defense that does not include lying. Any
vigorous defense that involves the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, and these conditions do not include lying or
deliberately and knowingly misleading. Most people learn that before
the first grade; Clinton hasn't learned it yet.
Are you saying that it is OK to lie in legal proceedings???????
May you be sued by a bunch of people who have your standards.


*Only
in the US would oral sex be grounds for impeachment.
In the US, it wouldn't have been a court matter except it became
evidentiary in the legal proceedings that were going on for years.