Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 5 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4701276)
But not just a lie, since he perjured himself in a deposition and before the grand jury. Nobody cares about his lying to other people, like Hillary -- that's yet another modern liberal delusion.


Like I said I am not willing to throw around legal terms, so as to whether it was perjury or not is not really my call. But at least we agree I was not "deceitful" when I called it a lie.

And it very much impacts on his "job."


You seem to think it is the only important thing possible regarding his job performance. I think it is a tempest in a teapot. The process was followed, punishment (such as it was) applied and the rest of the world moved on.

But not the kooks who still get all excited by it. MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAH! It was not that exciting back then, and is positively yawn inducing now. But when the only tool you have is a hammer, then even duct tape looks like a nail I guess.
   402. Rants Mulliniks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4701277)
But not just a lie, since he perjured himself in a deposition and before the grand jury. Nobody cares about his lying to other people, like
Hillary -- that's yet another modern liberal delusion.


I don't know why people even pretend the US has the rule of law anymore.
   403. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4701279)
I don't know why people even pretend the US has the rule of law anymore.


As opposed to 1979, when the guilty always were punished (99% of the time with the deserved death penalty) and the innocent always went free.

Why did Ronald Reagan ruin everything? Why?
   404. Rants Mulliniks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4701280)
I'm not a Reagan fan.
   405. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4701285)
It actually sounds completely benign.(*) It only sounds "noble" to you because of your purely partisan, modern liberal perspective.

(*) Which is why it was always a completely straightforward and uncontroversial idea -- until the secession of liberals and modern liberals from the world of facts and empirical, agreed-upon principles.

But not just a lie, since he perjured himself in a deposition and before the grand jury. Nobody cares about his lying to other people, like Hillary -- that's yet another modern liberal delusion.



A hundred Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, A hundred ninety-nine bottles of beer.

Take three down and pass em around, ninety-six bottles of beer on the wall....


Hey, lighten up on that ####, man. I've got a tournament tonight and I wanna keep my focush. (hic)
   406. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4701289)
He perjured himself and obstructed justice,

Yeah, impeaching the Chief Executive for feloniously and perjuriously interfering with the laws he pledged an oath to uphold.


Perjury? Was that charge brought before an appropriate judicial entity or body? What did that body conclude?

If that tribunal, or those tribunals, did not find perjury, then,

Everyone has one, but that alone does not justify the official labelling of someone as a criminal.
   407. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4701292)
You seem to think it is the only important thing possible regarding his job performance. I

Now you've moved the goalposts again ....
   408. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4701293)
But not just a lie, since he perjured himself in a deposition and before the grand jury.


If he was never charged or convicted, is it really perjury? Or just a demonstration of sophistry?
   409. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4701300)
If he was never charged or convicted, is it really perjury?

He can't be charged while in office, then plea bargained potential post-office charges away, so yes. He lost his law license for perjuring himself (and I believe he was disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court). And he was, of course, impeached for the perjury.

Was Richard Nixon not guilty of any crimes because Ford pardoned him?
   410. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4701302)
How about Bush II/Cheney? Do you see that a charge of criminality might be supportable in some court somewhere? Say, for starting a war, resulting in the death of many, on a pretext that was shown to have ridiculously bogus? Would that justify calling them murderers?

Or Reagan violating law and constitution in Iran-Contra?

Now, some are teeming with delusions about impeaching Obama for Benghazi.

The threshold for removal can be made to be so low as to make governing simply impossible, don't you think?
   411. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4701303)
Now you've moved the goalposts again ....


My goal post is now and has always been Bill sleeping around is a problem for Bill and HRC to figure out. Oddly I care about the job my president does. Bill has a mixed record, but who he slept with and when, where and so on is not a big deal to me, nor is his lies about it. You care. Many people care. That doesn't mean I have to care though.
   412. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4701306)
Was Richard Nixon not guilty of any crimes because Ford pardoned him?

We don't know because the purpose of the pardon was to preclude getting into all that. Thus, Nixon never had his day in court. You can speculate, but you can be definitive. Surely, that can be gasped.
   413. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4701307)
He can't be charged while in office, then plea bargained potential post-office charges away


So he is not legally guilty. Good to know. Sounds like it really was, in the end, just a lie. I would love to hear Bill and Barry Bonds down a few cold ones and compare notes.
   414. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4701310)
He lost his law license for perjuring himself (and I believe he was disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court). And he was, of course, impeached for the perjury.

It's hard not to conclude that you're engaged in an exercise in dishonesty. I'm sure it's all in fun, but still. There was no court finding or Congressional finding of a conviction for perjury. He was impeached (indicted) but skated. He did not lose his license to practice law because of a finding of perjury. Surely, an attorney can appreciate the legal meaning of that.
   415. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4701311)
SBB and Ray are simply pretending that their mere opinion is legally binding. It isn't.

They begin with a bluff, pretending their opinion is law, then when called on it, and their pronouncement exposed for what it is--a mere opinion--quibble and quibble follows.

It's all right to say that I think X should have been found to have violated criminal law Y, but then, really, you should be honor-bound to admit that however X was not found to have committed Y after legal/judicial proceedings before the appropriate tribunal with jurisdiction over the matter in question. If you can't do that, you're just being a silly dishonest person.
   416. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4701312)

Like I said I am not willing to throw around legal terms, so as to whether it was perjury or not is not really my call. But at least we agree I was not "deceitful" when I called it a lie.


No, we don't agree about that, since you continue to deceive about what the issue was.
   417. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4701313)
He lost his law license for perjuring himself (and I believe he was disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court).


No, he agreed to a temporary suspension of his license (five years, I think) as part of a deal in which he acknowledged that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers." That's obviously not a good thing, but it's not the same as perjury.

And he was, of course, impeached for the perjury.


And then acquitted.

Was Richard Nixon not guilty of any crimes because Ford pardoned him?


A pardon renders any question of legal guilt or innocence a moot point. Nixon bears a level of moral responsibility for what he did, but that's a different meaning for the term "guilt".

A comparison of Nixon to Clinton doesn't really work, both since the lack of a pardon for Clinton meant that his actions remained within the realm of possible legal sanction (and a case, for whatever reason, could not be made against him), and since the question of whether it is possible to be morally culpable for an offense that is purely a legal construct (i.e. telling a lie specifically within the context of a legal proceeding) is too difficult to properly parse.
   418. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4701314)
SBB and Ray are simply pretending that their mere opinion is legally binding. It isn't.

I don't know about Blanks, but Ray's always had the quaint opinion that the law is whatever he says it is, not what the Supreme Court says it is. I think this is what he calls objective reasoning.
   419. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4701315)
Bill has a mixed record, but who he slept with and when, where and so on is not a big deal to me, nor is his lies about it. You care. Many people care. That doesn't mean I have to care though.


You clearly do care about it, since you're not being honest about what the issue was.
   420. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4701317)
No, we don't agree about that, since you continue to deceive about what the issue was.


So the issue wasn't that he lied? As discussed above it was not (perhaps only technically) perjury. Which makes the lie the problem. The fact that I am stating that is somehow more deceptive than those that insist it was perjury, despite (according to Morty) there was no such finding of perjury?

That is some mighty fine logic chopping there.

Look I get "Slick Willy" getting away with it makes you all angry and stuff. Too bad.
   421. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4701319)
Clinton lied under oath

And notwithstadning his acquittal, OJ committed murder.

According to the Model Penal Code, perjury is:
: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.


Bill easily meets 1 & 3. A prosecutor might have a tough time proving #2 though.

   422. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4701322)
So he is not legally guilty.


Neither was OJ, don't care.

Claiming that Bill didn't perjure himself is basically dishonest, it's a knee jerk type partisan response you rightfully call out wingers for when they do it.
   423. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4701327)
Your opinion is not a final legal judgment. Neither is mine. And this board is not a court with jurisdiction over any of those matters (Clinton or OJ or W. or Nixon). And that court with jurisdiction is what counts for the official legal disposition of the matter.

You can believe whatever the #### you want. The legal reality is that X was never convicted. So if you are going to play in that game, acknowledge what the end result was.
   424. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4701328)
Claiming that Bill didn't perjure himself is basically dishonest, it's a knee jerk type partisan response you rightfully call out wingers for when they do it.


Not my claim. I am stating he lied and that I am not a lawyer and so don't want to get in the weeds of perjure/not perjure. We have had lawyers above state strongly both cases. I am not a lawyer, so all I know is a) he lied and b) not about anything that really impacted his job performance in a meaningful way and c) he was punished enough (IMO) for what he did.
   425. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4701329)
So the issue wasn't that he lied?


No, it wasn't.

As discussed above it was not (perhaps only technically) perjury.


Fun with parentheses! Try to hide the ball inside of them!

Which makes the lie the problem. The fact that I am stating that is somehow more deceptive than those that insist it was perjury, despite (according to Morty) there was no such finding of perjury?


We "insist it was perjury," because it was perjury. But even if you don't agree, then you should be honest and admit that the issue was perjury (and obstruction), not merely "lying" or "lying to his wife" or "lying about an affair."

And you really don't want to follow Morty down whatever garden path he's leading you. Morty is delusional on this issue, similar to how he claims that Roman Polanski can't have raped a 13 year old girl because Polanski was never convicted in any court of law for that.
   426. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4701332)
Claiming that Bill didn't perjure himself is basically dishonest, it's a knee jerk type partisan response you rightfully call out wingers for when they do it.

No, it isn't. It's an indication of good mental health that you can discern between two different planes of consideration. It's like knowing that who should win on paper is not necessarily who won for real.
   427. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4701336)
Bill easily meets 1 & 3. A prosecutor might have a tough time proving #2 though.


Not since Bill expanded the Federal Rules of Evidence to include pattern evidence in sexual harassment cases. Regardless, as you know it isn't the witness's role to decide whether a question goes to a material fact before answering it -- let alone lying about the answer after deciding that it didn't go to a material fact (which it did).
   428. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4701338)
We "insist it was perjury," because it was perjury. But even if you don't agree, then you should be honest and admit that the issue was perjury (and obstruction), not merely "lying" or "lying to his wife" or "lying about an affair."


Where did I say the issue was that he just lied to his wife? You are arguing with the voices again Ray. As I have said multiple times the issue was he lied. Perjury is a kind of lie, a specific legal kind, and as "not a lawyer" I am not willing to opine as to whether what he did was perjury or not.

I do know he lied and I do know he was never convicted of perjury. How on earth you go from there to my claiming he was innocent like Roman Polanski or OJ I have no earthly idea. I never said any such thing (though I did say he was not legally guilty, but in my defense he was not legally found as being guilty, which kind of backs that claim up I think).
   429. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4701340)
A pardon renders any question of legal guilt or innocence a moot point. Nixon bears a level of moral responsibility for what he did, but that's a different meaning for the term "guilt".

I've always thought that accepting a pardon requires admission of guilt. Is that not true? (I honestly don't know - not being a lawyer and all).

Personally, I'm conflicted on B. Clinton's trial and stuff. I don't htink he should have been asked during an investigation about extramarital sex. Of course, it was extramarital sex occuring in the workplace (that is, the Oval Office). However, having been asked while under oath, he could have taken the 5th. I tend toward the view that lying about anything under oath is a far different deal than simply lying. Given that, I think Bill should've resigned. It's easy to say, "it's just sex and it doesn't matter!" I happen to agree. But if Bill agrees, there was no need to lie about it.

Pretty much no one comes off looking good here. And I think it did do lasting damage to the United States. We've always been cynical about those in power but that was a several year period where it was absolutely clear that the only thing those in power cared about was staying there. Goes for both sides. The Republicans should have called off the attack when it was clear there were only tawdry offenses to be found and the Democrats should have pushed Clinton to resign once he showed that he thought he was above the law. In the end, not one person involved could bring themselves to do something that might cost them a tiny little bit of power.
   430. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4701341)
No, he agreed to a temporary suspension of his license (five years, I think) as part of a deal in which he acknowledged that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers." That's obviously not a good thing, but it's not the same as perjury.


The differences are miniscule and inapposite. Nor was it a "temporary suspension." It was five years in Arkansas, and I believe it's turned permanent w/r/t the Supreme Court.

The lies were absolutely material, as they went to Clinton's behavior in the workplace, the gravaman of the underlying lawsuit. His extramarital dalliances without more might not have been material, but lies about his behavior in the workplace were virtually definitionally material.

And then acquitted.

No, that's not an acquittal. Because of his office, charges were limited to impeachment and remedies were basically nuclear or nothing. In that context he wasn't convicted ... but he certainly wasn't "acquitted" under the proper definition of the term. Bringing criminal charges post-office, after he'd already been subjected to charges on the same conduct, would have been akin to double jeopardy and unfair, and it was statesmanlike of whoever the IC was at the time for settling on the law license remedy.
   431. The Good Face Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4701342)
b) not about anything that really impacted his job performance in a meaningful way


What a bizarre standard. Clinton could have been killing hookers in his spare time and that wouldn't really have impacted his job performance in a meaningful way either.
   432. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4701344)
I'll admit Clinton perjured himself. It also would have been very easy not to do so, but like many folks, he thought otherwise at the time. I'm sure Clinton is - in general - a magnificent liar, and I'm equally sure he's told other lies. Probably pretty important ones.

In retrospect, I kind of don't care whether he was impeached or not, because it would have made everyone look even stupider than they already did if he had been. I wonder if there's ever been any kind of alternate history written of what would have been the outcomes if he had actually been impeached.


What a bizarre standard. Clinton could have been killing hookers in his spare time and that wouldn't really have impacted his job performance in a meaningful way either.

I think you're mistaking Clinton for yourself.
   433. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4701350)
And you really don't want to follow Morty down whatever garden path he's leading you. Morty is delusional on this issue, similar to how he claims that Roman Polanski can't have raped a 13 year old girl because he was never convicted in any court of law for that.

tsk tsk. Don't forget to remind us how you always take the high ground.

We "insist it was perjury," because it was perjury.

Who's this "we"? What are your credentials? What authorizes you to make the legal finding? (Not to mention, your second-guessing that which record of you don't access to. Talk about disbarment action. As an attorney, you should be ashamed.)
   434. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4701355)
What a bizarre standard. Clinton could have been killing hookers in his spare time and that wouldn't really have impacted his job performance in a meaningful way either.


And killing hookers would have been against the law, unlike having extramarital sex. But I never said that was the bright line standard upon all which is measured. I simply mentioned that at least the barry Bonds witch hunt was directly related to his job. I am hardly suggesting that Barry Bonds was rightfully targeted, just that it had a tiny shred more relevance to it.

Pretty much no one comes off looking good here. And I think it did do lasting damage to the United States.


Agree on the first part, mostly. HRC came out of it looking good and being very popular. As to "lasting damage" I think that way overstates it. Watergate and iran-Contra were both much more damaging (for example).

Should Bill have resigned? I don't think so, though it would have helped Gore certainly, but ultimately it was his choice. Should he have lied? Obviously not. it was dumb, but very human. Something both genders have lied about for thousands of years.
   435. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4701358)
However, having been asked while under oath, he could have taken the 5th.


Oh, having a sitting President take the 5th in a court case, the fallout from that may have been even more entertaining than what actually transpired.

1: He should have answered truthfully; or
2; he should have refused on the grounds that the question was being asked for an improper purpose (harass/embarrass the witness, then sought a ruling from the judge if need be)
   436. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4701362)
I do love that 17 years later some people still get all up in a hissy over this. I really want HRC to run for President, the humor value of the campaign alone, totally worth it.
   437. The Good Face Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4701363)
What a bizarre standard. Clinton could have been killing hookers in his spare time and that wouldn't really have impacted his job performance in a meaningful way either.

I think you're mistaking Clinton for yourself.


I'm flattered that you think my focus and conscientiousness is superior to a former President of the United States, even if it IS Bill Clinton.
   438. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4701364)
The differences are miniscule and inapposite.

They are exact and exactly differentiating.

People in courts do what Clinton did every ####### day, hundreds of times a day in this country. In family law, husbands deny committing adultery.reflexively, wives hide assets and resources and deny having them under oath, and no is brought to task. A conviction of perjury was meant to be very hard to prove; it is essentially disproving a certain subjective state of mind existed, which is why it use to rarely be an issue until the law has become politicalized, or is it politics law-ridden. All during that brouhaha there was a reason that no one could come up with precedent.for this sort of "perjury".
   439. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4701366)
Who's this "we"?


I just want to state for the record that I agree with Ray that you're delusional on this issue, and that trying to have a conversation with you on it is like arguing with a dining room table.
   440. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4701369)
We "insist it was perjury," because it was perjury.

Who's this "we"?


This we is me, and anyone else who is honest enough not to lie about the fact that the issue was perjury/obstruction, not lying per se and not (Andy's and Treder's favored phrasing) "sex."
   441. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4701370)
and no is brought to task.


they should be.

A conviction of perjury was meant to be very hard to prove

no the problem is that the courts have allowed this to go to much
   442. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4701372)
Ray, SBB, if you're right, and anything goes, what's the point and meaning of an actual trial or legal disposition of a matter?
   443. The Good Face Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4701374)
And killing hookers would have been against the law, unlike having extramarital sex.


Lying under oath is also against the law.
   444. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4701375)
And killing hookers would have been against the law, unlike having extramarital sex.

I'm pretty sure what Clinton did with Lewinsky was in violation of some workplace sexual-harassment laws.
   445. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4701376)
Agree on the first part, mostly. HRC came out of it looking good and being very popular. As to "lasting damage" I think that way overstates it. Watergate and iran-Contra were both much more damaging (for example).

Well, disagree on HRC. Sticking around after your spouse treats you as bad as Bill treated her doesn't, to me, make her look good. And I'm not talking about simple adultery. I know several couples in what I would call good marriages where one forgave the other that trespass. But the adultery was quiet, with knowledge limited to only a handful of close friends and family. I probably know many more where it happened but I'm not privy (and I don't need to be). But the public drag through the mud that Bill put Hillary through should have pushed her away. Anyway, it seems clear that she stuck around simply to hold onto power. Which, as I say, was the problem with the entire fiasco.

In Watergate and Iran-Contra powerful people did bad things but there were actors involved behaving in a moral, ethical manner. People on the same side of the aisle as the offenders who called a spade a spade. You didn't get that in Clinton's scandal. No, Clinton's scandal wasn't as substantive. But that should have made it easier, not harder, to come out against him (and I don't mean a simple finger wag. I mean actual punishment).



Oh, having a sitting President take the 5th in a court case, the fallout from that may have been even more entertaining than what actually transpired.


Not that I'll ever be President, thankfully, but if I ever am, I hope I'm asked to testify on something. I will only take the 5th. Let the press go crazy.
   446. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4701378)
Why does Obama hate America?

Newly proposed rules for highly skilled immigrants to the United States, including a provision to allow their spouses to work, are aimed at making it easier to keep those talented science, technology and engineering workers in the country, officials said on Tuesday.


I assume because we are talking high skill employees Joe K is for this, but maybe not.
   447. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4701379)
Nor was it a "temporary suspension."


It was a suspension for a fixed term, followed by a re-application for reinstatement. In this article, the executive director of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct characterized the re-application process as a largely pro forma thing, as long as no new offenses have occurred during the suspension (which in Clinton's case, they did not).

As far as I know, he has never bothered to apply for reinstatement, but it seems unlikely that he would have any trouble getting his Arkansas license back at this point, if he wanted to do so.

No, that's not an acquittal. Because of his office, charges were limited to impeachment and remedies were basically nuclear or nothing. In that context he wasn't convicted ... but he certainly wasn't "acquitted" under the proper definition of the term.


And the term for an impeachment that does not result in a conviction... is an "acquittal". As per the US Senate's online reference copy of the Constitution, "President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate."
   448. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4701381)
441:

Perjury, and as we are seeing with other related changes that all too easily can used as entrapment, is much too easily abused. That's why making the thing walk was supposed to be hard to do. That's why the prosecution had to show that the person under oath really didn't believe what he was saying.
   449. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4701383)
She fell flat on her face when she tried the first time. That might inspire confidence in you, but it wouldn't in me.


She fell less flat on her face than did McCain or Romney, both of whom are likely to have been better options than anyone not named Jeb this time around the GOP wheel of cray cray. The fact that the 49ers lost to the Seahawks doesn't mean they weren't better than the Broncos.
   450. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4701384)
I'm flattered that you think my focus and conscientiousness is superior to a former President of the United States, even if it IS Bill Clinton.

You misread. I'm 100% sure you would care less about killing hookers than Clinton would.

(However, I'm also sure that you would have a much harder time killing cats, so I count that in your favor.)
   451. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4701388)
And you really don't want to follow Morty down whatever garden path he's leading you. Morty is delusional on this issue, similar to how he claims that Roman Polanski can't have raped a 13 year old girl because he was never convicted in any court of law for that.


The difference in this case is that "rape" is an offense that exists independently of any legal structure, while "perjury" is not.

I think just about everyone in this thread is willing to say that Clinton lied (by action and/or omission) about having sex with Lewinsky. But a lie can only be perjury within the specific framework of the law - stripped of that specific context, it's just a lie like any other.
   452. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4701392)
This we is me, and anyone else who is honest enough not to lie about the fact that the issue was perjury/obstruction, not lying per se and not (Andy's and Treder's favored phrasing) "sex."

There's almost no better marker of the aging 60s liberal than referring to Clinton's impeachment as "Pussygate" or "Clinton's Penis" or some similarly juvenile scatalogical term. The idea that everyone other than the aging 60s liberal is "hung up" over sex is equally comical and delusional.

And the term for an impeachment that does not result in a conviction... is an "acquittal". As per the US Senate's online reference copy of the Constitution, "President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate."


Well, you got me cornered there. Acquittal of a president by the Senate is exactly the same thing as a layman getting acquitted by a jury in a regular court. Can't argue with that.
   453. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4701393)
She fell less flat on her face than did McCain or Romney, both of whom are likely to have been better options than anyone not named Jeb this time around the GOP wheel of cray cray.


loFl. McCain is in Hillary's boat. He also is not electable as President, and thus is not a "better option" for the Republicans than anyone this side of Jeffrey Dahmer.

   454. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4701396)
loFl. McCain is in Hillary's boat. He also is not electable as President

You decided you weren't going to answer who was electable for the Dems over Hillary, right?
   455. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4701400)
But the public drag through the mud that Bill put Hillary through should have pushed her away. Anyway, it seems clear that she stuck around simply to hold onto power. Which, as I say, was the problem with the entire fiasco.


How on earth can you possibly know this? It is very possible, likely even, that she loves Bill.And even if she doesn't and never did I am a big believer in letting adults make their own decisions regarding their own personal life, and she did. Besides I think it very clear she could have dumped him and likely ridden the wave of "women wronged" support at least as far politically as she has the "loyal woman" support.

She did not have to stay married to go on politically, and in fact it might have helped her had she dumped him (hard to know exactly, counterfactuals are hard to prove). In any event the simplest explanation is that she remains married to him, because she wants to be married to him.Since it is her life, more power to her.

In any event no matter what you and I think, the polling numbers from before and after pretty clearly showed that she did benefit a great deal from the event. She was crazy popular in the aftermath. it may not have helped anyone else, but it helped her.

Hmmm, maybe it was all a plot by HRC to give a boost to her own post-presidency career. (Kidding).
   456. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4701401)
But a lie can only be perjury within the specific framework of the law - stripped of that specific context, it's just a lie like any other.

And it was perjury. It just couldn't be charged as such because of our constitutional structure. And within that structure -- the only structure available -- it was charged as such. If the Senate had had the normal panoply of remedies available to them, beyond removal from office and nothing, perhaps he would have been convicted.

It was probably the right result that he wasn't removed from office, which of course doesn't stop the zealots and fanatics from making their fanciful claims about the process.
   457. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4701402)
Lying under oath is also against the law.


Hectoring a sitting POTUS for obvious political reasons, well beyond what anyone would consider rational discovery, for the express purpose of attempting to ask him enough contravening questions that he would at some point say something wrong and give you a reason to impeach him, is apparently not.
   458. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4701403)
You decided you weren't going to answer who was electable for the Dems over Hillary, right?


Just like he claims HC is a terrible politician, but refuses to name some good politicians. Why stand for anything when you can just attack, attack, attack?
   459. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4701404)
the public drag through the mud that Bill put Hillary through should have pushed her away

Other Presidents are now notorious as adulterers, including FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ: and one has to assume that their wives were well-informed. (Eleanor Roosevelt may have given as good as she got on that score, and one imagines Franklin knew about that, too.) Yet of course the public knew nothing at the time.

I guess what I'm saying is that public is the new private. The Roosevelts are a good analogy. Whatever their private relationship, it's pretty clear that they were not a romantic couple and didn't have a typical companionate marriage. They not only stayed married – and we might ascribe that to convention – but they were enthusiastic political allies with separate but, like the Clintons, complementary agendas and networks. It's just that with the Clintons, the sex scandals are public and way less material to political life anymore. Why they stay married is anybody's guess, but I wouldn't ascribe it just to Hillary's ambitions. For one thing, that wouldn't explain why Bill stays with her, unless he's extremely loyal to her, which then explains why he stays with her.
   460. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4701405)
loFl. McCain is in Hillary's boat. He also is not electable as President


So now you are claiming not only has she not shown the "ability" to get elected, but that she is not electable? Really? Is it over, has it always been over?
   461. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4701406)
Those who refuse to acknowledge the distinctions in law like Ray and SBB here--well, they should scare the #### out of you. Having a mindset like that goes to the very heart of the misuse of law, to use it as a validation of your sense of right and wrong, and to give that sense weight it doesn't have on its own. Let's not argue and bicker about who killed who--or any other fine distinctions. You did wrong, that's what's important--let's not parse technical labels.
   462. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4701407)
McCain is in Hillary's boat.


Not at all, Ray.

The 49ers (Hillary) lost to the Seahawks (Obama.)
The Broncos (McCain/Romney) lost to the Seahawks (Obama.)

We know that the Seahawks were better than all three of those other "teams."

We have no reason to think the 49ers, in a playoff structure where the Seahawks can't compete again, would lose to the Broncos (or the Patriots, or the Ravens.)
   463. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4701409)
well beyond what anyone would consider rational discovery,

Clinton's behavior toward women in the workplace is obviously and self-evidently rational and relevant discovery in a workplace sexual harrassment case.

You're being partisan again, showing neither the inclination nor ability to apply a simple principle evenhandedly, without resorting to over-the-top politicized rhetoric.
   464. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4701410)
they were not a romantic couple


And they were (distant) cousins. Her maiden name was Roosevelt. I always find that odd.
   465. zenbitz Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4701412)

I'm not really super clear on how Clinton managed to remain unconvicted of perjury. Perjury is also a very odd law when you are involved in your own defense or offense (I think clearly purjury makes sense when testifying for or against a third party).

What if Obama is negotiating with Putin and Putin asks him to swear an oath to be truthful? Shouldn't he still lie in his country's (and possibly friendly 3rd parties') interest? Obviously US Presidents are not really bound by international law (see: Dick Cheney).

I have no love for either Clinton, although I occasionally hold my nose and vote for them because they can seem better than the alternatives. At the time of the Lewinsky scandal it all seemed very trumped up and political.

If one was clearly concerned about Paula Jones (and possibly Monica) why not wait until he's out of office when you don't have prove a High Crime or Misdemeanor? In summary - the lawsuit was kind of a trap, and he did get caught. Is purjury is a civil trial an impeachable offense? (in a neutral sitation... like say you are asking me if the President of Panama should be impeached for purjury in a civil case).

Given the actual crimes against humanity that ALL presidents "legally" commit, it's seems a little ridiculous.
   466. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4701414)
Clinton's behavior toward women in the workplace is obviously and self-evidently rational and relevant discovery in a workplace sexual harrassment case.


And this is how the Dems will lose women in 2016, even with HRC on the ticket. Women will flock to the party that is clearly willing to do anything to protect them from sexual harassment. As Joe K would say, lol.
   467. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4701415)
On the impeachment thing, I'm with Morty and Sam. But let's grant that Clinton committed a specific act of perjury that was technically illegal, tried for it or not. Should that rise to the level of a "high crime" for impeachment purposes? Or a "high misdemeanor" (assuming "high" to modify "misdemeanor" as well)? Even cast at its worst (that vile predatory sexist liar!) it still seems like a low misdemeanor to me, compared to defying Congress in the immediate aftermath of a civil war, or using FBI and CIA to cover up crimes committed by your re-election campaign.
   468. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4701418)
Clinton's behavior toward women in the workplace is obviously and self-evidently rational and relevant discovery in a workplace sexual harrassment case.


Clinton's behavior toward women in the workplace was abysmal and obviously flawed. But the inquiry into those behaviors, by 1998 and the Lewinsky affair, had completely exited the realm of reasonable investigation into complaints from Arkansas and become nothing but a political witchhunt by the House GOP. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
   469. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4701419)
and become nothing but a political witchhunt by the House GOP


Next you will suggest the Barry Bonds affair was not really about protecting the children from the evils of steroids.
   470. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4701420)
Well, you got me cornered there. Acquittal of a president by the Senate is exactly the same thing as a layman getting acquitted by a jury in a regular court. Can't argue with that.

Good. Now we're straight. Charges were brought in the proper venue. That venue refused to convict. It could have been a court (which also didn't convict him of perjury), or EEOC hearing, or any number of adjudicatory bodies. Hell, it could have been a president of the company who survives a challenge before the board. You, who brought the challenge, may think you should have been successful. But you weren't. Get the difference? The important thing is that it was a duly empowered adjudicatory body, and it disposed of the issue. You aren't such an adjudicatory body (neither am I), so you don't get to have a decision that legally holds. You can only have a layman's opinion. Follow that?
   471. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4701422)
But let's grant that Clinton committed a specific act of perjury that was technically illegal, tried for it or not. Should that rise to the level of a "high crime" for impeachment purposes? Or a "high misdemeanor" (assuming "high" to modify "misdemeanor" as well)? Even cast at its worst (that vile predatory sexist liar!) it still seems like a low misdemeanor to me, compared to defying Congress in the immediate aftermath of a civil war, or using FBI and CIA to cover up crimes committed by your re-election campaign.


Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate. Having an opposition party who punts the idea of the "loyal" part of "loyal opposition" in favor of contradicting a clear win in a democratic election via contrived impeachment proceedings is far more damaging to the body politic than having a POTUS who is a #### toward women and a lawyer who lawyers like a lawyer when it comes to answering deposition questions.
   472. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4701423)
And it was perjury. It just couldn't be charged as such because of our constitutional structure. And within that structure -- the only structure available -- it was charged as such.


And then he was acquitted. As such, he's not guilty of perjury.

I'm glad that we've finally and conclusively established this.
   473. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4701424)
But the inquiry into those behaviors, by 1998 and the Lewinsky affair, had completely exited the realm of reasonable investigation into complaints from Arkansas and become nothing but a political witchhunt by the House GOP. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

His initial perjury was in a depo in the Paula Jones, not the Lewinsky investigation. The Lewinsky investigation didn't even begin until he perjured himself about her in the January 1998 depo.

Perjury by a sitting president self-evidently necessitates further investigation.
   474. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4701425)
The guy I loved during the impeachment trial was William Rehnquist. He literally wore a comic-opera robe, as if to say "I don't like the guy either, but all y'all are insane if you think he's going to be convicted."
   475. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4701428)
The idea that everyone other than the aging 60s liberal is "hung up" over sex is equally comical and delusional.


Gee, I wonder where people might get an idea like that?
   476. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4701429)
Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate

I strongly agree.
   477. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4701430)
Step 1: Perjury by a sitting president self-evidently necessitates further investigation.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!
   478. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4701433)
At the time of the Lewinsky scandal it all seemed very trumped up and political.

Should that rise to the level of a "high crime" for impeachment purposes? Or a "high misdemeanor" (assuming "high" to modify "misdemeanor" as well)?

It was trumped up. David Brock, among others, admitted it. The whole point and maneuver was to undermine the electoral process.

Of course, having sex, some sort of sex, with whomever, is certainly not crime that calls for impeachment. What wouldn't be impeachable then? And now with Benghazi, we're seeing the upshot of expanding the structures. Or, how about impeaching for being born in Hawaii and traveling to a foreign country as a kid. It gets ridiculous.

BTW, those tobacco execs who testified before Congress: perjury?
   479. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4701434)
And then he was acquitted. As such, he's not guilty of perjury.


But he perjured himself. Several times.

Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate.

Well, yeah -- we've already established that the modern liberal has seceded from the rational, empirical world in which Reagan was never remotely close to being impeached. And this proves it perfectly. In modern liberal fantasyland, Reagan but not Clinton was impeached. In the actual world wherein the sane dwell, Clinton was impeached and nearly convicted, and Reagan wasn't close to being impeached.

And so it goes.
   480. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4701435)
"What we have discovered is a way to find not where you were born – as you have that information on your passport – but where your DNA was formed up to 1,000 years ago by modelling these admixture processes.

"What is remarkable is that, we can do this so accurately that we can locate the village where your ancestors lived hundreds and hundreds of years ago – until now this has never been possible."

To demonstrate how accurate GPS predictions are, Dr Elhaik and his colleagues analysed data from 10 villages in Sardinia and over 20 islands in Oceania.

The research published today in the journal Nature Communications shows that Dr Elhaik and his team were able to place a quarter of the residents in Sardinia directly to their home village and most of the remaining residents within 50km of their village.

The results for Oceania were no less impressive with almost 90 per cent success of tracing islanders exactly to their island.

"This is a significant improvement compared to the alternative SPA tool that placed Oceanians in India," said Elhaik.

"In his third book, children's author L. Frank Baum revealed that Oz resided around Australia. It always troubled me that if I ever met anyone claiming to be from the wonderful world of Oz, I would like to be able to verify their origins and now we can!

"This technique also means that we can no longer easily classify people's ethnic identities with one single label. It is impossible for any of us to tick one box on a form such as White British or African as we are much complex models with our own unique identities. The notion of races is simply not plausible."


   481. The Good Face Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4701438)
(However, I'm also sure that you would have a much harder time killing cats, so I count that in your favor.)


The fact that my wife's cat is still alive is strong evidence that I'm the kindest and most tolerant person who's ever lived.
   482. SteveF Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4701439)
The 'high' in high crimes and misdemeanors has generally been viewed as being related to the status of the person committing the crime (i.e. a public official) and crimes relevant to that status (like bribery or corruption). The 'high' isn't related to the magnitude of the offense.
   483. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4701440)
The guy I loved during the impeachment trial was William Rehnquist. He literally wore a comic-opera robe, as if to say "I don't like the guy either, but all y'all are insane if you think he's going to be convicted."

Rehnquist's dress and demeanor were something out of Gilbert & Sullivan He obviously wasn't taking his role very seriously. All that was needed was Sideshow Bob singing the entire score from HMS Pinafore.
   484. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4701441)
loFl. McCain is in Hillary's boat. He also is not electable as President, and thus is not a "better option" for the Republicans than anyone this side of Jeffrey Dahmer.

So once again, Bright Boy, what did that make the two-time loser Ronald Reagan in 1980? Or is that irrelevant since he was a Republican?

----------------------------------------

Just like [Ray] claims HC is a terrible politician, but refuses to name some good politicians. Why stand for anything when you can just attack, attack, attack?

OTOH he sure knows how to invoke the BTF equivalent of the Fifth Amendment, or at least the Alfonso Bedoya variant of it. He ain't gotta show us no stinkin' good politician.

----------------------------------------

Not at all, Ray.

The 49ers (Hillary) lost to the Seahawks (Obama.)
The Broncos (McCain/Romney) lost to the Seahawks (Obama.)

We know that the Seahawks were better than all three of those other "teams."

We have no reason to think the 49ers, in a playoff structure where the Seahawks can't compete again, would lose to the Broncos (or the Patriots, or the Ravens.)


Yeah, but all that's irrelevant, since Ray picked the Eagles (Mystery Candidate) to win it all, and we all know that the Eagles (Mystery Candidate) would easily crush the "overrated" Seahawks (Hillary), especially since as Ray had also predicted, the Seahawks (Hillary) were blown out by the Saints (Biden).
   485. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4701443)
In modern liberal fantasyland, Reagan but not Clinton was impeached.


No, honey. That's not the argument. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. Then maybe we'll take the short bus for pizza if you wear your helmet.

Reagan's actions were worse of an abuse of constitutional power than Clinton's.

Reagan was not impeached, but there were more grounds to impeach him rightfully if the Democratic Congress had decided to attempt as much.

Clinton was impeached, not because his actions warranted it equally, much less moreso than Reagan's, but because the Congress in 1998 put party politics above the national good in order to attempt to overthrow a democratically elected president they abhorred irrationally, by any means necessary.
   486. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4701444)
Rehnquist's dress and demeanor were something out of Gilbert & Sullivan He obviously wasn't taking his role very seriously. All that was needed was Sideshow Bob singing the entire score from HMS Pinafore.

Even Nixon himself once famously dismissed him as "that clown Renchburg".
   487. The Good Face Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4701446)
I'll just leave this here.
   488. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4701447)
Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate

I strongly agree.


This.

I mean, selling arms to one nation that we had a near-10 year complete embargo against, don't/didn't even have diplomatic relations in order to fund terrorists/fledgling drug cartels in another nation where congress had specifically passed another law outlawing such actions?

It's one of the more amazing episodes in US history that 1) Reagan basically escaped Iran-Contra without much of any blemish beyond hush-hush/wink-wink "well, he's now lapsed into kindly old grandfathery Reagan who can be... forgetful", 2) his Veep virtually not having to answer ANY questions about it running just a year later for POTUS himself, and 3)a few minor, short prison sentences.

It boggles my mind, truly... It wasn't even Mess-o-potamia incompetence where lots of money goes missing and weapons end up in the hands of bad guys -- it was actual and intended effort to specifically sell illegal arms shipments to a foreign nation that was at the very TOP of the US naughty list in order to funnel money to people blowing up cafes and nuns, pushing a little blow on the side that Congress had specifically outlawed funding.
   489. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4701448)
In modern liberal fantasyland, Reagan but not Clinton was impeached. In the actual world wherein the sane dwell, Clinton was impeached and nearly convicted, and Reagan wasn't close to being impeached.

So, Congress not convicting resolves nothing, but Congress taking no action categorically disposes of the issue? We can only get meaning from what Congress doesn't do?
   490. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4701449)
I have minimal interest in the issue of Bill's perjury, but it would make more sense in discussing it if people were to specify which statements constituted perjury. For all I know, you're arguing over different issues.

There were 3 charges of perjury in the Paula Jones case, and the House failed to impeach on those, suggesting that a perjury finding would be pretty unlikely. There were 2 articles of impeachment based on his Grand Jury testimony, for which he was acquitted, and then there was the contempt citation by the District Court. It was that contempt citation, not any perjury charge per se, which led to his suspension.
   491. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4701450)
The 'high' in high crimes and misdemeanors has generally been viewed as being related to the status of the person committing the crime (i.e. a public official) and crimes relevant to that status (like bribery or corruption). The 'high' isn't related to the magnitude of the offense.

Interesting. By those lights, the President or Vice President is obviously high (whether they inhaled or not), but small or large, for the crime or misdemeanor to be high, it also has to relate to their highness. So if it emerges that Joe Biden forged his Amtrak ticket all those years, and faces a couple of months in federal transit prison once his term ends, he still really wouldn't be impeachable by the spirit of the Constitution, because who cares.
   492. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4701454)
Well, yeah -- we've already established that the modern liberal has seceded from the rational, empirical world in which Reagan was never remotely close to being impeached. And this proves it perfectly. In modern liberal fantasyland, Reagan but not Clinton was impeached. In the actual world wherein the sane dwell, Clinton was impeached and nearly convicted, and Reagan wasn't close to being impeached.

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer.

Take three down and pass em around, ninety-six bottles of beer on the wall....

Ninety-six bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-six bottles of beer.

Take two more down and pass em around, ninety-three bottles of beer on the wall....


I'm guessing that Sugar Smack's strategy is to get everyone drunk before dinner, and then we'll all confess we had sexual relations with that woman.
   493. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4701455)
Thanks for the link in #487, BTW, Face. I put it on my wish list. Looks like I'd be prejudiced against it, but I like to consider arguments on all sides.
   494. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4701456)
But he perjured himself. Several times.


The American legal system disagrees with you.
   495. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4701457)
The 'high' in high crimes and misdemeanors has generally been viewed as being related to the status of the person committing the crime (i.e. a public official) and crimes relevant to that status (like bribery or corruption). The 'high' isn't related to the magnitude of the offense.


Close, but not quite. From an originalist viewpoint, it's easiest to think of it by analogy to treason. There were 2 types of treason at common law: high treason and petty treason. The former involved disloyalty to the state. The latter involved disloyalty to one's husband, say, or master. Thus, the phrase "high crimes and misdeameanors" most plausibly meant "crimes and misdemeanors related to the government or duties of office".

That's if you're an originalist. Another way to look at it is that the phrase means whatever Congress wants it to mean.
   496. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4701459)

She did not have to stay married to go on politically, and in fact it might have helped her had she dumped him (hard to know exactly, counterfactuals are hard to prove). In any event the simplest explanation is that she remains married to him, because she wants to be married to him.Since it is her life, more power to her.


So I shouldn't weigh in if a husband is beating a wife? That's their business? Treating people badly is treating people badly. Sticking with someone who treats you badly, for whatever reason, does not make you a hero in my book. And it's just that, my book. I get to make up my mind about the character of others, just as Hillary and Bill get to make up theirs about mine. Of course it's their life and they can live it how they want. I'm not suggesting I get the power of deciding who stays married. But I do get to make decide what I think about it. Hillary stayed with Bill either because she's too weak to stand up for herself or out of political calculation. If she is to be president, I sure hope it's the latter.

In any event no matter what you and I think, the polling numbers from before and after pretty clearly showed that she did benefit a great deal from the event. She was crazy popular in the aftermath. it may not have helped anyone else, but it helped her.

My nit wasn't that she didn't gain by sticking around - she mostly certainly did - but whether or not "she looked good" by her actions in the scandal. In my opinion, she did not. Obviously many people disagree.

   497. SteveF Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4701461)
Thus, the phrase "high crimes and misdeameanors" most plausibly meant "crimes and misdemeanors related to the government or duties of office".

Yes. This is a better phrasing and what I intended to convey.
That's if you're an originalist. Another way to look at it is that the phrase means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

As a practical matter, the latter is the way the world actually works. Of course, we have detailed mechanisms for changing laws and zeitgeist isn't one of them.
   498. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4701463)
I'll just leave this here.


Heh. The WSJ's review was written by Charles Murray.

I'm sure it's be a fair and even-handed treatment of the mat... sorry, couldn't keep a straight face there.

(I'll reserve judgment on the book itself, of course, until it's actually out.)
   499. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4701464)
Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra were far more impeachable than Clinton's assumed perjury in Monica-gate.


I agree too.

   500. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4701466)
So I shouldn't weigh in if a husband is beating a wife? That's their business? Treating people badly is treating people badly. Sticking with someone who treats you badly, for whatever reason, does not make you a hero in my book. And it's just that, my book.


Well obviously you get to decide how you feel about people, but you also have to recognize they don't have to go along with your book. And to follow your metaphor, you lost respect for HRC for being beaten and not leaving. Which is fine, but there are people that don't mind their spouse sleeping around. A good friend of mine just last weekend was mentioning how his wife requested they have an open marriage and now both are (openly, honestly) "dating" other people. Different things bother different people.

HRC made the choice to stay with Bill. Bill's sleeping around was not criminal (like beating her non-consensually would be), and she gets to make the choice. Yes you can decide you like her less for it, but you don't get to assert definitively she did it for the power and it is just another example of decline in our government/civilization (not exactly what you said, I am too lazy to look up the exact words).

Page 5 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3413 - 4:22pm, Sep 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(52 - 4:21pm, Sep 21)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(25 - 4:04pm, Sep 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogLindbergh: Dellin Betances’s Season & Bullpen Strategy
(6 - 3:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(30 - 3:30pm, Sep 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(345 - 3:17pm, Sep 21)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogJames Shields is the perfect pitcher at the perfect time
(41 - 3:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(16 - 2:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: Danny

NewsblogEsquire: Martone: The Death of Derek Jeter
(314 - 2:34pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(320 - 2:15pm, Sep 21)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(89 - 1:43pm, Sep 21)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(11 - 1:14pm, Sep 21)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogLindbergh: Where Dellin Betances’s Season Ranks Historically, and What It Teaches Us About Bullpen Strategy
(2 - 12:31pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(295 - 7:40am, Sep 21)
Last: Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-20-2014
(92 - 2:49am, Sep 21)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

Page rendered in 0.9838 seconds
52 querie(s) executed