Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
Perjury and false statements in a civil case are criminal conduct. Starr didn't pursue the charge out of deference to the office. THe Senate figured the conduct didn't rise to a level that warranted removing him from Office. But the underlying case where his criminal lying behavior happened was a civil case.

Sorry. Thought you were referring to having "been charged" in the lawsuit. Obviously, he wasn't criminally charged, he was sued under legal codes for his unlawful behavior.

125 posted on 02/03/2006 3:58:46 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: lepton
Sorry. Thought you were referring to having "been charged" in the lawsuit. Obviously, he wasn't criminally charged, he was sued under legal codes for his unlawful behavior.

Yeah. That's the underlying cause of action. Jones lost the case, and it was settled while the appeal was pending.

Clinton was found in contempt of court for his false and misleading testimony, but it took alot of public pressure tocause that to come about.

Clinton Impeahment <- Good summary of how events unfolded

Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d. 1118 (E.D.Ark. 12 April 1999) (Clinton found in civil contempt of court for violation of discovery orders.)

Jones v. Clinton, 57 F.Supp.2d 719 (E.D.Ark. 29 Jul 1999) (Clinton ordered to reimburse Jones' attorneys for $89,484 for legal fees and expenses.)

Links to Legal Proceedings Against Bill Clinton

The case that went to the Supreme Court was on the question of whether or not a President has some sort of immunity (either total or temporary) from being a defendant in a civil trial.

Her complaint contains four counts. The first charges that petitioner, acting under color of state law, deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution, in violation of Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The second charges that petitioner andFerguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights, also actionable under federal law. See Rev. Stat. §1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The third is a state common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, grounded primarily on the incident at the hotel. The fourth count, also based on state law, is for defamation, embracing both the comments allegedly made to the press by Ferguson and the statements of petitioner's agents. Inasmuch as the legal sufficiency of the claims has not yet been challenged, we assume, without deciding, that each of the four counts states a cause of action as a matter of law. With the exception of the last charge, which arguably may involve conduct within the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, it is perfectly clear that the alleged misconduct of petitioner was unrelated to any of his official duties as President of the United States and, indeed, occurred before he was elected to that office.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1997)


127 posted on 02/03/2006 4:47:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson