Posted on 02/13/2004 10:52:11 AM PST by Hon
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:54 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Mr. KERRY. Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, I want to thank the Chief Justice for his important stewardship of these proceedings. And I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their patient leadership in helping to bridge the divide of partisan votes so that these are not partisan deliberations.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Note the long and torturous rhetoric finally bringing this Marxist to moral relativism.
Sickeningly pathetic.
The Democrats constantly lied about the context of this case.
he tried to avoid discovery
He didn't try to "avoid" discovery. He went into a deposition and lied under oath.
in a civil case.
Clinton was accused of violating the civil rights of Paula Jones. Sexual harassment is a violation of civil rights laws, one of the Left's causes celebres</>. When anyone but Clinton does it, the Left howls after their hide. I've defended men whose careers were ruined for relatively innocuous behavior. Trust me. Compared to the the actions supporting sexual harassment cases in this country, what Clinton did, dropping his pants in front of a subordinate and asking her to kiss it, is egregious. If Clinton didn't get nailed, 90 percent of the people who've paid judgments for sexual harassment should have been given a pass, too.
a private, consensual affair with a woman who was subsequently determined to be irrelevant to the caseThe only difference between Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones is that Monica said "Yes." In sexual harassment cases and other discrimination cases, the question is often one that is difficult to prove: What was the actor's "intent"? When it's "He said, she said," who do we believe? So in those kinds of cases, the courts have relaxed the rule that you can't introduce evidence of other, similar bad acts.
The evidence about Lewinski was absolutely relevant. Robert Blakey is the leading scholar on evidence in the country. He stated publicly that there was no question the Lewinski evidence was relevant to Jones' case. But any lawyer who has tried a civil rights case knows that it was relevant. It was obvious.
Furthermore, the deposition was taken with the judge sitting right there in the room to rule on any objections. Usually, you have to stop a deposition and go see a judge to get a ruling on a disputed objection. If this evidence were irrelevant, the judge would have relieved Clinton from the obligation of answering. My guess is that if you saw the deposition transcript, Clinton's lawyer didn't object to the questions, at least not on relevance grounds, because he knew they were relevant. And if he did object on relevance grounds, the judge properly overruled the objection and required Clinton to answer.
which case itself was thrown out as wholly without merit under the law
The case was never thrown out as "wholly without merit." It was thrown out by the trial court on a ruling that Jones hadn't alleged the right kind of damage. There was never any ruling on the merits of Clintons behavior. I have no doubt that that behavior was sufficient bad to meet the legal threshhold for sexual harassment.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal on the damages issue, and the case was reinstated at the time Clinton coughed up a substantial amount of money to settle.
These damn Democrats lie with every breath. And all their lies could easily have been exposed if we had anything vaguely resembling an unbiased press.
The Democrats constantly lied about the context of this case.
he tried to avoid discovery
He didn't try to "avoid" discovery. He went into a deposition and lied under oath.
in a civil case.
Clinton was accused of violating the civil rights of Paula Jones. Sexual harassment is a violation of civil rights laws, one of the Left's causes celebres. When anyone but Clinton does it, the Left howls after their hide. I've defended men whose careers were ruined for relatively innocuous behavior. Trust me. Compared to the the actions supporting sexual harassment cases in this country, what Clinton did, dropping his pants in front of a subordinate and asking her to kiss it, is egregious. If Clinton didn't get nailed, 90 percent of the people who've paid judgments for sexual harassment should have been given a pass, too.
a private, consensual affair with a woman who was subsequently determined to be irrelevant to the case
The only difference between Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones is that Monica said "Yes."
In sexual harassment cases and other discrimination cases, the question is often one that is difficult to prove: What was the actor's "intent"? When it's "He said, she said," who do we believe? So in those kinds of cases, the courts have relaxed the rule that you can't introduce evidence of other, similar bad acts.
The evidence about Lewinski was absolutely relevant. Robert Blakey is the leading scholar on evidence in the country. He stated publicly that there was no question the Lewinski evidence was relevant to Jones' case. But any lawyer who has tried a civil rights case knows that it was relevant. It was obvious.
Furthermore, the deposition was taken with the judge sitting right there in the room to rule on any objections. Usually, you have to stop a deposition and go see a judge to get a ruling on a disputed objection. If this evidence were irrelevant, the judge would have relieved Clinton from the obligation of answering. My guess is that if you saw the deposition transcript, Clinton's lawyer didn't object to the questions, at least not on relevance grounds, because he knew they were relevant. And if he did object on relevance grounds, the judge properly overruled the objection and required Clinton to answer.
which case itself was thrown out as wholly without merit under the law
The case was never thrown out as "wholly without merit." It was thrown out by the trial court on a ruling that Jones hadn't alleged the right kind of damage. There was never any ruling on the merits of Clintons behavior. I have no doubt that that behavior was sufficiently bad to meet the legal threshhold for sexual harassment.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal on the damages issue, and the case was reinstated at the time Clinton coughed up a substantial amount of money to settle.
These damn Democrats lie with every breath. And all their lies could easily have been exposed if we had anything vaguely resembling an unbiased press.
This says a lot about this phony, and a lot more about his cronies. This man is in the same mold as Clinton, and his ascension to the Presidency, will set this country back 40 yrs.
Jean F'ing Interns Kerry just summed up the Democrat Party in one phrase. Facts? We don't need no steenkin' facts!
There you have it! The Jesse Jackson - Janet Jackson - John Kerry rule of law. If you didn't INTEND the consequences, then you aren't guilty of the offense.
Jesse Jackson said Bill Clinton didn't intend to hurt his wife and daughter, so he can't be judged guilty.
Janet Jackson said she didn't intend to offend anyone, so she shouldn't be found offensive.
After all, Clinton is our guy.!!
Think I'll bump this tonight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.