PDA

View Full Version : wJc humor - not!


Peter Creasey
October 6th, 2005, 02:50 PM
FBI FREEH UNLOADS ON CLINTON: 'CLOSETS WERE FULL OF SKELETONS'
Thu Oct 06 2005 14:07:50 ET

Louis Freeh Speaks for the First Time About his Terrible Relationship with the President

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh says publicly for the first time that his relationship with President Bill Clinton – the man who appointed him – was a terrible one because Clinton’s scandals made him a constant target of FBI investigations. Freeh discloses this and many other details of his dealings with the Clinton White House in a new bombshell book: 'My FBI : Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror' -- set for release next week.

Freeh has taped an interview with Mike Wallace and CBSNEWS '60 MINUTES' to be broadcast Sunday.

In the book, “My FBI,” he writes, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

The director sought to distance himself from Clinton because of Whitewater, refusing a White House pass that would have enabled him to enter the building without signing in. This irked Clinton. “I wanted all my visits to be official,” says Freeh. “When I sent the pass back with a note, I had no idea it would antagonize the president,” he tells Wallace.

Returning the pass was only the start of the rift. Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.” Says Freeh, “I don’t know how they referred to me and I really didn’t care,” he says. “My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation,” Freeh says.

In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”

The most unsavory of those investigations was the one concerning Clinton and Lewinsky. The White House intern had kept a semen-stained dress as proof of her relationship and a Clinton blood sample was needed to match the DNA on the dress. “Well, it was like a bad movie and it was ridiculous that…Ken Starr and myself, the director of the FBI, find ourselves in that ridiculous position,” he tells Wallace. “But we did it…very carefully, very confidentially,” recalls Freeh. As he explains the plan in the book, Clinton was at a scheduled dinner and excused himself to go to the bathroom. Instead of the restroom, he entered another room where FBI medical technicians were waiting to take a blood sample.

Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. “I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director,” he tells Wallace. “[So] I was going to stay there and make sure he couldn’t replace me,” Freeh tells Wallace.

rlohmann
October 6th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Prepare to be hammered on.

Certain individuals around here are in deep denial about the conduct of OFPaLotFW (Our Former President and Leader of the Free World). One of them, whose name I will suppress in order to avoid exposing her to public humiliation, insisted that OFPaLotFW did not in fact commit perjury because, well, all married guys cheat on their wives.

That individual and at least one other insist that that same PaLotFW was impeached for sexual misconduct alone.

Put on your steel helmet and flak jacket.

davidh
October 6th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Put on your steel helmet and flak jacket. I don't have any and doubt I will be reimbursed if I purchase them, so I'll probably not volunteer to enter the war zone.

David H.

Peter Creasey
October 6th, 2005, 05:53 PM
because, well, all married guys cheat on their wives.


R, Then whoever she is, she deserves our sympathy...she has obviously been unfortunate with respect to the guys she has been acquainted with.

Judy G. Russell
October 6th, 2005, 07:53 PM
Do you really enjoy misrepresenting other people's opinions as much as it appears that you do?

Lindsey
October 6th, 2005, 09:15 PM
From Josh Marshall's commentary (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_02.php#006702) on Freeh's book:


How is it that Bill Clinton was such a bad actor that Freeh couldn't get anything else done because he had to spend so much investigating him and yet Freeh never caught him doing anything? Which of Clinton's associates did Freeh indict?

Think about it. Either Freeh is just as big a buck-passer and liar as we think or he is a self-confessed incompetent. It's genuinely funny.
--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 6th, 2005, 10:17 PM
There's an old old OLD joke about the FBI...

A dog trainer offers to train dogs for all the federal investigative agencies. They all scoff: "Nobody who trains dogs for them can train dogs for us!" But the trainer persists and finally offers to do a free training session and a demonstration.

The day arrives for the demonstration and representatives of all the agencies pack the auditorium. First, the Treasury dog goes onstage and unerringly picks out the suitcase containing the counterfeit money. Then the DEA dog goes onstage and unerringly picks out the suitcase with the hidden drugs. Then the Customs dog goes onstage and unerringly picks out the suitcase with the undeclared dutiable merchandise.

Finally, the FBI dog goes onstage... screws all the other dogs and calls a press conference...

Lindsey
October 6th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Oooooh, that's mean. FUNNY, but mean! :p

I seem to remember that the FBI under Louis Freeh's leadership didn't come out so well in the 9/11 Commission's report. I would think he'd sort of want to lay low rather than risk reminding the public of that. But maybe he decided to throw up a smokescreen instead.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 7th, 2005, 04:17 AM
Oooooh, that's mean. FUNNY, but mean! :p

I seem to remember that the FBI under Louis Freeh's leadership didn't come out so well in the 9/11 Commission's report. I would think he'd sort of want to lay low rather than risk reminding the public of that. But maybe he decided to throw up a smokescreen instead.

--Lindsey

Then, of course, there are those of us who, one way or the other, don't give a dirty old rat's . . . . .

Judy G. Russell
October 7th, 2005, 07:24 AM
Unfortunately, those of us who live here and are dependent, in smaller or larger measure, on the efforts of the FBI in crime and terrorist protection/investigation, don't have the luxury of not caring if the FBI is and was doing its job.

RayB (France)
October 7th, 2005, 02:12 PM
Unfortunately, those of us who live here and are dependent, in smaller or larger measure, on the efforts of the FBI in crime and terrorist protection/investigation, don't have the luxury of not caring if the FBI is and was doing its job.

Of course I care about whether or not the FBI does its job. To what I was referring was the petty bickering about a book of no consequence.

Judy G. Russell
October 7th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Having not read it, I can't comment on the "of no consequence" opinion.

RayB (France)
October 7th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Having not read it, I can't comment on the "of no consequence" opinion.

Then, of course, there are those of us who, one way or the other, don't give a dirty old rat's . . . . .

rlohmann
October 7th, 2005, 07:31 PM
That was, as far as I recall, your response when I quoted the language of 18 USC § 1621 in the context of Clinton's responses in the Paula Jones discovery. I was more than a little surprised.

I believe the assertion was in the context of your insistence that Starr was persecuting Clinton for his sexual activities and nothing more, and that the entire investigation was a Puritan witch hunt.

rlohmann
October 7th, 2005, 07:37 PM
You seem to be commenting away, nonetheless.

I do notice a familar theme in this thread, to the effect that anyone who criticizes Clinton has got to be malign, incompetent, or both. (The impeachment was about nothing but sex, after all....)

Freeh is supposed to be on "60 Minutes" Sunday evening. Why don't we all wait to hear what he has to say before going on the attack?

Lindsey
October 7th, 2005, 10:21 PM
Unfortunately, those of us who live here and are dependent, in smaller or larger measure, on the efforts of the FBI in crime and terrorist protection/investigation, don't have the luxury of not caring if the FBI is and was doing its job.
Thank you--you took the words right out of my mouth. (Or right from my fingers, as it happens.)

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 8th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Thank you--you took the words right out of my mouth. (Or right from my fingers, as it happens.)

--Lindsey

Excuse me, ladies, but I am every bit as much of an American as you and resent any inferrence that it isn't just as important to me than it is to you. I just happen to live in France in my retirement.

What Freeh/Billy Jeff did/didn't do back when is of no consequence to here and now. That is what I care about. The rest is trying to sell a book and make a buck.

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 11:40 AM
That's part of what I mean about you misrepresenting what other people say. Never at any time did I even hint at the idea that this was a "Puritan witch hunt". A political witch hunt, maybe. A Puritan one? Never in a million years.

I established beyond question that essentially nobody else in the history of the Republic has ever been prosecuted for lying about his/her sex life, even in connection with a criminal case, much less a civil case. You never showed otherwise. But you persist in thumping the table and squealing "liar liar liar" at the top of your voice. You may find that to be fun, but it gets old quickly.

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Let's see here... I tell a joke about the FBI and you immediately regard it as a comment about Freeh's book. Now what was I saying about misrepresenting what people say???

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 11:46 AM
What Freeh/Billy Jeff did/didn't do back when is of no consequence to here and now.There is an old adage about those who don't learn from history being doomed to repeat it. It is, it seems to me, perfectly appropriate to know where things may have gone wrong (or even, if we can believe it) right in recent years to have some idea of where things may be done better in the future. That doesn't mean we need to know everything about everything either of them may have done or failed to do. But when it comes to the way either or both handled the responsibilities of the offices they held, I simply disagree with the "who cares about that" attitude you appear to display.

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 07:00 PM
I established beyond question that essentially nobody else in the history of the Republic has ever been prosecuted for lying about his/her sex life, even in connection with a criminal case, much less a civil case. You never showed otherwise. But you persist in thumping the table and squealing "liar liar liar" at the top of your voice. You may find that to be fun, but it gets old quickly.Having pounded the facts and found those against you, and having pounded the law and found that against you, you have undertaken to pound the table.

I respectfully invite your attention in this context to the most excellent case of Ashford v. Thornton, 106 Eng. Rpt. 149 (1818) for the proposition that desuetude ("nobody's ever been prosecuted for violating that criminal statute before") is disfavored by the common law.

Absent American case law to the contrary, I assume, and I infer from the decision of the House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton, that desuetude is not a defense to a charge of violation of the federal perjury statute.

RayB (France)
October 8th, 2005, 07:29 PM
**But when it comes to the way either or both handled the responsibilities of the offices they held, I simply disagree with the "who cares about that" attitude you appear to display.**

YOU and some others do. I and many others don't . . . . and who says we have to?? I have always felt that 'woulda/shoulda/coulda' attitude is a useless waste of time because 'it wasn't' and nothing will change that fact.

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 08:53 PM
I'm not going to engage with you (again, for the umpty-'leventh time) on the question of whether he COULD have been prosecuted (or impeached). It's the question of SHOULD where we disagreed and disagree and will forever disagree. (And, as I noted, my position won in the Senate, so get over it.)

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 08:54 PM
That sounds an awful lot like suggesting that it's a "blame game" (to use the wonderful phrase of the current GOP) to ever review what happened and what went wrong in any given situation -- and a recipe for forever repeating the same mistakes over and over.

rlohmann
October 9th, 2005, 06:05 PM
I'm not going to engage with you (again, for the umpty-'leventh time) on the question of whether he COULD have been prosecuted (or impeached). It's the question of SHOULD where we disagreed and disagree and will forever disagree. (And, as I noted, my position won in the Senate, so get over it.)Once again, it's up to the readers of this exchange to decide who's pounding the table. You had said, I established beyond question that essentially nobody else in the history of the Republic has ever been prosecuted for lying about his/her sex life, even in connection with a criminal case, much less a civil case. That looks to me like a strong argument for desuetude.

Moreover--and this possibly for the umpty-'leventh time--I question what seems to be a continuing denial on the part of some individuals with respect to the Clintons' actions. Clinton started his administration by appointing his totally unqualified wife to reform the American health-care system. She failed miserably, violating in the process at least one law (the one requiring that unclassified meetings that included federal employees be open to the public), and then lied about it.

Both Clintons seem to have gotten a free pass on that one.

With respect to the Jones case, a civil action, the plaintiff made a credible assertion of assault. Her attorneys initiated the discovery process. The judge got involved. Clinton lied.

Yet you say he should not have been impeached, the House acting conceptually as a grand jury. You go on to assert that his acquittal by the Senate, as the petit jury, proves not only his innocence, but also the fact that he was maliciously prosecuted.

What baffles me the most about this is the fact that the common-law assault complained of was in currently fashionable terms, "sexual harassment." Surely we would be entitled to expect an outpouring of rage from the NOW and their sympathisers.

Nothing. Nichts. Rien. Nada. Niente.

Go figure.

As you know, I'm beginning to have serious reservations about Bush, but this may be the umpty-'leventh time I've asked you to explain or in some way justify what seems to me to be very much of a double standard.

Peter Creasey
October 9th, 2005, 08:09 PM
Both Clintons seem to have gotten a free pass

R, One of the things I guess we'll never understand is how the Clintons, despite their shenanigans, get such support from really intelligent and moral people. It defies explanation how the Clintons have gotten so many upstanding people to help them circle the wagons for protection no matter how despicable their actions.

Judy G. Russell
October 9th, 2005, 08:28 PM
Once again (and I am really getting tired of this): I never once said the Senate vote proves Clinton was "innocent." I said the Senate agreed with me that Clinton should not be removed from office.

That doesn't mean he "got away with" anything. To the contrary, he paid a terrible price, in the civil sphere, for his conduct: he paid a large settlement and gave up his law license. More was simply not required -- except by people who hated (and hate) Clinton so much that they can't stand the idea that he was (gasp) treated if anything more harshly than any other civil litigant in the same position. They seem to believe he should have been hung, drawn and quartered.

rlohmann
October 11th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Once again (and I am really getting tired of this): I never once said the Senate vote proves Clinton was "innocent." I said the Senate agreed with me that Clinton should not be removed from office.I agree about the fatigue factor, but I seem to recall a discussion of his conduct some time ago in the context of Title 18 that included an assertion on your part that his false statement was in some manner not "material" in the sense of the statute. The discussion then was about the elements of the offense; not about some political judgment. (I think I got tired at that point.)

That doesn't mean he "got away with" anything. To the contrary, he paid a terrible price, in the civil sphere, for his conductAn interesting locution. The present situation of both Clintons, financial and otherwise, clearly gives new meaning to the phrase "paid a terrible price."

he paid a large settlement...which he has recouped many times over in "consulting fees" and other emoluments the source of which is not entirely clear. To the best of my knowledge, both Clintons are now millionaires.

... and gave up his law license.This, you aver, was another aspect of the "terrible price"? Is it your belief that Clinton had any plans to practice law after leaving the White House? (Come to think of it, did Clinton ever practice law at all?)

More was simply not required -- except by people who hated (and hate) Clinton so much...Those who hate Clinton can defend their own views. Mine, as you well know, are strongly critical of "get out of jail free" cards for those guilty of misconduct in public office. In any event, I find it difficult to understand why criticism of the Clintons is characterized as "hating Clinton" while criticism of screwups in the Bush administration is merely a principled acknowledgment of how bad things are.

...that they can't stand the idea that he was (gasp) treated if anything more harshly than any other civil litigant in the same position.
A fitting closing argument that summarizes your perspective uniquely.

I have nothing to add.

RayB (France)
October 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM
**I have nothing to add.**

The 'Deprosecufense' rests!

Lindsey
October 11th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Mine, as you well know, are strongly critical of "get out of jail free" cards for those guilty of misconduct in public office.
So--in your view, any action that didn't leave Bill Clinton and his family destitute for the rest of their lives, or at the very least exiled in some squalid and remote location, was a "get out of jail free card"?

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 12th, 2005, 02:27 AM
So--in your view, any action that didn't leave Bill Clinton and his family destitute for the rest of their lives, or at the very least exiled in some squalid and remote location, was a "get out of jail free card"?

--Lindsey

Hmmmm? I'm thinking . . . . . . Nah, it's more fun whenever I see his face to remember seeing him digging a hole and pulling dirt in on top of himself - 'Ah did not have sex with that woman!' It makes me smile!

earler
October 12th, 2005, 07:13 AM
It's a strange world in which we live today, where felons like michael milken, ivan boesky, w.j. clinton, martha stewart are now multi-millionaires, while the average felon may not vote in many states and lives in poverty, unable to get a job. And, those who are only guilty of stupidity, like john rigas and sam wacksal are sentence to overly harsh prison terms.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 12th, 2005, 09:39 AM
If lying under oath in the course of civil litigation were to be treated with the degree of harshness you appear to suggest (at least when committed by Democrats, and particularly by Democrats you intend to run against for the next century the way you've run against Roosevelt for most of the last century), our courts would be clogged, our prisons jammed to overflowing. It simply isn't done and it ought not to be done.

Lying during civil litigation is caught and punished (to the extent that it happens at all) in the course of the civil case. The fact that you hate Clinton to the point of unreason does not change the reality that that is what happens day in and day out all around the country and there was no good reason to treat Clinton differently.

earler
October 12th, 2005, 12:40 PM
I don't hate clinton, reasonably or unreasonably. Please don't ascribe sentiments to me that I have never expressed here or elsewhere. This doesn't mean that I feel clinton was an admirable president, except that he was wise enough to profit from the excellent economic situation he inherited from the reagan and bush sr. years, which permitted him to reduce the government deficit and to preside over the prosperity the country enjoyed and to leave office as the business cycle was changing to the one with which we are faced in the beginning of this new century.

Further I've never "run against roosevelt for most of the past century". I have never discussed roosevelt here or anywhere else online. I assume you are speaking of fdr and not theodore roosevelt, who was also a president during the 20th century. You have absolutely no idea how I feel about fdr or theodore roosevelt either. Your message also implies strongly that I have always voted for a republican candidate for the presidency. Once more, you are mistaken. Your method of discussion reminds me of the old method of asking when one stopped beating ones wife.

As for clinton's status as a felon, I'll let counselor lohmann address that question. He appears to be the pre-eminent lawyer here. I shall bow to his learning.

-er

I added a preposition in my edit of this message.

Peter Creasey
October 12th, 2005, 02:30 PM
If lying under oath in the course of civil litigation were to be treated with the degree of harshness you appear to suggest ..., our courts would be clogged, our prisons jammed to overflowing. It simply isn't done and it ought not to be done.

Judy, I find this revelation to be astonishing. I had always thought that perjury was pursued to the ultimate by our justice system.

That individuals or our justice system might condone perjury the way you describe would seem to indicate further how things were moralled down during the '90s decade.

Can you provide some citations or links that are informative about our justice system allowing perjury to slide by unpunished?

Wayne Scott
October 12th, 2005, 04:10 PM
I am amused at your reference to running against Roosevelt. You may be too young to recognize that the Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover right through the campaign of Jimmy Carter, many, many years after Mr. Hoover had died and despite the opinion of almost every competent economist that he had NOTHING to do with bringing on the Great Depression.
You're dipping pretty deep to insult the proud members of the VRWC.

rlohmann
October 12th, 2005, 07:40 PM
ROFL!

Well, Judy had said that his "terrible punishment" was far greater than a normal civil lititigant nailed for perjury would have gotten. However, considering that that litigant would have gotten about a year in the slammer according to the murky Federal Sentencing Guidelines....

Let me put it this way: Exactly how do you define "destitute" and "squalid"?

Lindsey
October 12th, 2005, 09:46 PM
I don't hate clinton, reasonably or unreasonably. Please don't ascribe sentiments to me that I have never expressed here or elsewhere. . . .

Further I've never "run against roosevelt for most of the past century". I have never discussed roosevelt here or anywhere else online. . . . Your message also implies strongly that I have always voted for a republican candidate for the presidency. Once more, you are mistaken.
Ummm, Earle, if you trace back through the thread tree, you will see that Judy was answering Ralph's message, not yours.

As to pre-eminent lawyer, well: as a former federal prosecutor and a current law school professor and editor for a legal publishing firm, I think Judy has plenty of standing here when it comes to interpreting the law.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 12th, 2005, 09:49 PM
However, considering that that litigant would have gotten about a year in the slammer according to the murky Federal Sentencing Guidelines....
Cite cases, please.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:05 AM
You keep asserting that a civil litigant would (apparently routinely) get a year in the slammer for perjury in the course of a civil case. I'd like you to show me, say, five such cases in the last five years. Citations please.

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:06 AM
As Lindsey notes, I was answering Ralph's message, not yours.

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:16 AM
Peter, I was a federal prosecutor for more than five years. In that time period, not once was a civil litigant ever prosecuted for perjury in connection with a civil case. (Lying to criminal investigators, as Martha Stewart found out, is another kettle of fish.) In fact, it's relatively rare that perjury during a criminal trial (by an ordinary witness) is prosecuted. The fact is, the system takes care of lying in other ways. In the criminal trial, the liar is usually exposed as such (and, if it's the defendant, the sentencing gets jacked up). In the civil trial, the liar is usually exposed as such (and, if it's the defendant, the jury award gets jacked up).

This is not a change in any way. Perjury didn't get actively prosecuted in civil cases before Clinton and then get excused during and after Clinton. It's essentially always been dealt with through the medium of the trial itself, especially when it's in a civil case. No justice system could survive if it put people in jail every time they lied in the course of a civil case. We'd drown in the debt of maintaining the prisons.

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:17 AM
I'm not insulting; I'm describing. And you know very well that the GOP will be running against Clinton and againts your very own "Senator Rodham" for decades to come.

earler
October 13th, 2005, 07:09 AM
I don't follow any threading, only noted that judy's message followed mine. Looking back to the messages, I now see she was replying to ralph's message. However, she said that he hates the clintons, while he is quite specific in saying he doesn't hate the clintons. Therefore, I assumed she was addressing my message.

Since her message was in reply to ralph's it might have been clearer if she had begun it with a dear ralph salutation or by some quoteback of what he did write, and she might have replied to my message, pointing out that her message wasn't to me but to the sage of maryland.

As for judy's competence as a lawyer, I don't doubt this at all, though her lack of objectivity as concerns political figures raises doubts as to how she handles her students. Is she inculcating her own opinions rather than teaching objectively? I don't know the answer to that question.

-er

p.s. Since writing the above I now see you have pointed out that your message was indeed a reply to ralph's. Nevertheless, I remain puzzled why you would claim he hates clinton when he explicity said he didn't hate him.

Peter Creasey
October 13th, 2005, 09:06 AM
the system takes care of lying in other ways. In the criminal trial, the liar is usually exposed as such (and, if it's the defendant, the sentencing gets jacked up). In the civil trial, the liar is usually exposed as such (and, if it's the defendant, the jury award gets jacked up).

Judy, Obviously, the foundation of our (any?) justice system is truthful testimony. High profile people e.g. the President of the U.S. (Clinton) committing perjury have to face appropriate actions. Beyond this, do you feel that the treatment of perjury that you describe in the quoteback is sufficient to command respect for the need to testify truthfully?

rlohmann
October 13th, 2005, 06:25 PM
You keep asserting that a civil litigant would (apparently routinely) get a year in the slammer for perjury in the course of a civil case. I'd like you to show me, say, five such cases in the last five years. Citations please.(This responds to both your and Lindsey's notes.)

Both of you demand that I cite cases. I have none. There may be a lot out there, but I no longer have access to the legal databases I had before I left the government.

It is here that both of you miss the first point. I never cited caselaw for the proposition that Clinton committed perjury. Rather, I cited Title 18 and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I assume you are familiar with both of these.

In any case--the second point--both of you appear to confuse the concept of prosecutorial discretion with that of malum in se, and conclude that since I cannot cite a case to show that any other perjurious civil litigant was punished, Clinton must necessarily be found innocent of any crime.

In the system established by our Constitution, the Legislature passes bills defining criminal offenses. These bills, once approved by the President, become laws that specifically prohibit certain acts. While some of those laws proscribe mere malum prohibitum, offenses on the order of traffic violations, others address acts more serious that are intrinsically evil and repugnant to public policy: offenses malum in se. Perjury is an offense malum in se.

Prosecutors may, and often must, pick and chose among charges to bring against an evildoer. Those choices often have little or nothing to do with the inherent nature of the act, but rather with the cost of prosecution, resources, jury issues, reliability of the evidence, and a thousand and one other factors. A prosecutor's decision not to go forward based on any of these factors is not, for obvious reasons, an affirmative determination of innocence.

Your arguments focus on the (apparent) lack of reported cases in which a perjuror in a civil case has been sentenced to imprisonment. In doing so, you appear to conflate prosecutorial discretion with malum in se. In reality, the lack of reported cases (if in fact there are none, which I do not concede) does not prove that Clinton did not violate the federal perjury statute.

A plain reading of that statute, in the context of Clinton's responses in the Jones discovery process and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, compels the conclusion that he committed perjury, an offense defined by the Congress, with the approval of the President, as repugnant. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines restate that value judgment.

Bill Hirst
October 13th, 2005, 06:45 PM
Judy, Obviously, the foundation of our (any?) justice system is truthful testimony. High profile people e.g. the President of the U.S. (Clinton) committing perjury have to face appropriate actions. Beyond this, do you feel that the treatment of perjury that you describe in the quoteback is sufficient to command respect for the need to testify truthfully?
It's also necessary to look at the way the jurors (Senators) voted. On the perjury issue, Democrats voted along party lines, 45 to 0, guilty. Republicans voted 45 to 10, NOT guilty. This case was not a search for truth. This was a case of partisan politics, and I think the results would have been the same no matter what Clinton said.

>UMM. make that "_Republicans_ voted along party lines, 45 to 0, guilty. _Democrats_ voted 45 to 10, not guilty.<

Lindsey
October 14th, 2005, 12:08 AM
I don't follow any threading, only noted that judy's message followed mine.
As with any message board, you have to follow the threading before you can conclude what message is being answered. No poster has any control over where in the chronological sequence his or her message falls.

Since her message was in reply to ralph's it might have been clearer if she had begun it with a dear ralph salutation or by some quoteback of what he did write
I notice you're not following your own advice...

As for judy's competence as a lawyer, I don't doubt this at all, though her lack of objectivity as concerns political figures raises doubts as to how she handles her students. Is she inculcating her own opinions rather than teaching objectively? I don't know the answer to that question.
Now you're being insulting. Expressing opinions in a social setting (which is what this is) doesn't mean that you can't operate apart from those opinions in a professional setting. And having an opinion doesn't mean you aren't objective; where do you get the idea that you can't form an opinion after taking an objective look at the facts? Being objective doesn't mean holding that all evidence is equally persuasive and all opinions are equally justified. It only means being open to weighing all available evidence. "Weighing" is not the same thing as "accepting".

And FWIW, I have no doubt from what I have seen of the assistance she gives people online, and from what I have heard of her classes, that Judy is a very fine teacher.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 14th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Ralph, you are answering arguments that I don't believe either of us has made. Judy said Bill Clinton had received harsher punishment than another civil litigant would have been likely to receive. You disputed that, but you have no actual facts as to what punishments have actually been received by civil litigants in those circumstances with which to back up that assertion. And you were accusing Judy of pounding the table?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 14th, 2005, 12:26 AM
Umm, Bill--you have that vote backwards.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 10:04 AM
I can't understand why you keep insisting that my argument that Clinton's was a case that shouldn't have been brought (i.e., a misplaced used of prosecutorial discretion exercised by the US House of Representatives) is actually an argument that he was innocent of all wrongdoing.

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 10:06 AM
You have neither a basis nor a right to challenge my competence or objectivity as a teacher, and I will not tolerate it. You get one warning about personal attacks. This is that warning. Do it again and you're history. I hope that's sufficiently clear.

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 10:10 AM
do you feel that the treatment of perjury that you describe in the quoteback is sufficient to command respect for the need to testify truthfully?The only thing that matters in reality in a civil case (and even many times in a criminal case) is the ability of the lawyer to show that the person isn't testifying truthfully. Lies, inconsistencies, misstatements (to go from worst to best in terms of errors in testifying) can all be exposed for the jury to see. Then it's up to the jury to do what they alone are given the right to do: determine the credibility of the people who testify.

For the most part, the system works. Sending civil litigants to jail for being wrong (and think about the nightmare of trying to decide whether the misstatement was deliberate or just a mistake!) won't make it work better.

earler
October 14th, 2005, 05:15 PM
You have neither a basis nor a right to challenge my competence or objectivity as a teacher, and I will not tolerate it. You get one warning about personal attacks. This is that warning. Do it again and you're history. I hope that's sufficiently clear.

I asked a question after saying I hoped you are more objective in your teaching than here. I fail to see how that is a personal attack since I couldn't judge how objective you are qua professor. As for the rest, you make personal attacks on the president of the united states, lohmann, and any and all republicans. Of course, it is your sandbox, so you can set your rules as you see fit. I'm afraid I still think of the days of CompuServe, when there was far more latitude. Your threat is in the mold of the current management there, I am sorry to say.

-er

MollyM/CA
October 14th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Can you cite specific instances of Judy's 'lack of objectivity?' What I'm seeing is that she quotes law and precedent, rather than screaming her prejudices.

Bill Hirst
October 14th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Umm, Bill--you have that vote backwards.

--Lindsey

Thanks. I had a brain glitch there. I'll run a virus scan.

Peter Creasey
October 14th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Judy, I haven't followed things closely enough to make a judgement in this case.

You have ALWAYS been exemplary in your fairness and patience in dealing with postings that might ruffle your feathers. I hope that you will be similarly fair and patient in dealing with Earler with his postings.

While Earler's comments (whatever they were) might not have been what you prefer to hear, all postings, including his, deserve your customary and considered respectful latitude.

If after due consideration you deem his comments to have been "over the line", then of course this is your ballpark and you are the head umpire.

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Here, there, and everywhere, we all tolerate (and indeed encourage) disagreement (even passionate and bitter disagreement) over issues. Personal attacks, however, no matter how they're couched, don't fall within that zone and simply won't be tolerated.

earler
October 15th, 2005, 07:52 AM
The playground's boss has spoken. So, all I can do is to refer you to a number of messages written by r. lohmann as proof of lack of objectivity.

Bear in mind that opinions are by their very nature subjective, even those emitted by the playground boss. Mine are no exception to this rule.

I'm an old curmudgeon, but one who did run some successful forums on a service, CompuServe, which enjoyed immense success without resorting to censorship, except in the most egregious cases. Times have changed. CompuServe forums are virtually dead and rules here are different. In my day, we gave far more latitude, and as sysop I was more tolerant of comments that I didn't appreciate than of those against other members.

aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus

-er

Dan in Saint Louis
October 15th, 2005, 09:20 AM
In my day, we gave far more latitude, and as sysop I was more tolerant of comments that I didn't appreciate than of those against other members.Exactly so. Differences of opinion are understood and can add to our knowledge and judgement. Discussion of varying opinions is a common learning tool. Comments directly impugning other members are another matter.

On those CIS forums with which I am most familiar, this discussion would have been squelched before it reached its current level of antagonism. I see MUCH more tolerance here than I did there, but there is still a line that is inconsiderate to cross.

rlohmann
October 15th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Ralph, you are answering arguments that I don't believe either of us has made.Yes, you did.

Judy said Bill Clinton had received harsher punishment than another civil litigant would have been likely to receive. You disputed that, but you have no actual facts as to what punishments have actually been received by civil litigants in those circumstances with which to back up that assertion.That's also true; I have no "actual facts." What we are dealing with here, however, is not with issues of fact, but rather issues of law.

It could very well be that nobody at all, ever, went to jail for perjury in a civil action. That's unlikely, but even if that's the case--and I do not at all concede that it is--it makes no difference at all with respect to Judy's argument that Clinton should not have been penalized for his perjury.

This is so because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which generally provide for a year's imprisonment for the first offense of perjury, were enacted by the Congress and approved by the President. Consequently, they articulate the public policy of the United States.

For that reason, whether or not Judy or anybody else believes that Clinton should not, for whatever reasons, have been penalized for his perjury, American law is to the contrary.

The prosecution--for about the tenth time--rests :)

rlohmann
October 15th, 2005, 05:11 PM
I can't understand why you keep insisting that my argument that Clinton's was a case that shouldn't have been brought (i.e., a misplaced used of prosecutorial discretion exercised by the US House of Representatives) is actually an argument that he was innocent of all wrongdoing.Because you assert that an argument is equivalent to a conclusion.

Please see my note to Lindsey in which I cite the public policy of the United States for the proposition that perjury is a criiminal offense.

You insist that the impeachment was "a misplaced use of prosecutorial discretion" without explaining why, in the context of that public policy, the impeachment was "misplaced."

If perjury is a criminal offense,

and

If Clinton commited perjury,

it follows that

Clinton committed a criminal offense

If your mileage varies, you may want to look at your gas gauge.

:)

Judy G. Russell
October 15th, 2005, 06:36 PM
As a former federal prosecutor, I can assure you -- with absolute certainty -- that not everybody who has ever committed a criminal offense has been prosecuted. There is such a thing -- often and appropriately exercised -- as prosecutorial discretion, and it keeps the courts from being clogged with prosecutions for things that are technically crimes but (for one reason or another) aren't worth prosecuting or shouldn't in fact be prosecuted.

Every single American who has ever failed to file an income tax return on time without getting an extension or who has, in any way, deliberately cheated on his/her income tax return or has even told someone else how he/she could cheat on his/her income tax return (and I think we can agree there are very very large numbers involved there) has technically violated 26 USC 7203 or 26 USC 7206.

So why is it that very few of those who are caught are ever prosecuted? Because generally speaking the civil penalties are enough.

There are many similar situations in the criminal code where a civil penalty is also provided: for a variety of reasons, we choose to let the civil law take care of it. That's certainly what happens in the vast majority of cases of perjury in the course of civil litigation (the court uses its civil or even criminal contempt power, the jury comes back with a greater award if the liar is the defendant or a smaller one -- or none at all -- if the liar is the plaintiff, and so forth and so on).

So, I repeat, the issue is not whether Clinton (or anyone else who lies in a civil case) could be prosecuted; it's whether a civil litigant should be prosecuted, or whether we should let the civil courts police their own problems.

Until and unless you are ready to increase taxes dramatically and add criminal courts, criminal court judges, prosecutors and investigators to handle the influx of cases from a policy that we always prosecute everybody who ever commits a federal offense, period, then you have to accept the reality that it just ain't so.

Moreover, I repeat, the Senate (the "jury" in Clinton's case) said it would not remove a President of the United States from office for lying under those specific circumstances. You obviously don't like it... but you don't get to vote on that issue (except insofar as you can vote for or against your Senators).

Dan in Saint Louis
October 15th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Since her message was in reply to ralph's it might have been clearer if she had begun it with a dear ralph salutationEarl, I can't tell who YOU are replying to, either. Should we do as you say, or do as you do?
Is she inculcating her own opinions rather than teaching objectively? I don't know the answer to that question.From the perspective of another teacher, I would hope BOTH. Her opinions, after experiencing the system from the inside, are just as important as the opinions of the text book authors. I sometimes find the books to be wrong, so attempting to simulate objectivity by agreeing with them would be irresponsible. When I find an error in a book, should I withhold my opinion from my students?

Lindsey
October 16th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Yes, you did.
No, I think you have misunderstood what was being said.

As for the rest, I have nothing to add to what Judy has said except that just as the president is not entitled to more lenience from the law than the average citizen just because he is the president, neither should he be subjected to more harsh treatment than the average citizen, either.

--Lindsey

rlohmann
October 17th, 2005, 07:34 PM
As a former federal prosecutor, I can assure you -- with absolute certainty -- that not everybody who has ever committed a criminal offense has been prosecuted. Thank you for reminding me that you are a former federal prosecutor and for explaining the concept of prosecutorial discretion.

The remainder of your response misses the point entirely.

Prosecutorial discretion, as you correctly point out, is driven by sheer numbers of cases, the adequacy of the evidence, and the resources of courts and prosecutors. Your reference to potentially overwhelming tax-cheat-trials was a good example.

However, the impeachment-and-removal procedures provided for in the Constitution are not tried in the federal courts, an aspect of the process that you appear to have overlooked. Presidents are impeached and tried in the Legislative Branch, and the last time I looked, the Congress was not inundated with presidential perjury cases.

In fact, there was only one such case, and the evidence was compelling. You yourself have never alleged that Paula Jones was fabricating her allegations.

The policy interest underlying the perjury statute is to discourage lying by parties to civil procedings because such lies would improperly disadvantage the victim of the lie. In this case, since the prosecutorial-discretion argument no longer works, what is your basis for stating that the impeachment should never have been initiated;for insisting that Clinton should have gotten off scot-free? Was he a better human being than Jones? Should female employees of male superiors have no recourse in situations like hers?

Would you make the same argument if George W. Bush were credibly accused of the same offense in the same circumstances?

Judy G. Russell
October 17th, 2005, 10:40 PM
since the prosecutorial-discretion argument no longer works, what is your basis for stating that the impeachment should never have been initiated;for insisting that Clinton should have gotten off scot-free? Was he a better human being than Jones? Should female employees of male superiors have no recourse in situations like hers?You're concatenating two entirely separate issues:

(a) should Clinton have been impeached (meaning generally removed from office), to which I answer no, as did the majority in the United States Senate; and

(b) should Clinton have gotten off scot-free, to which I also answer no, as did the District Court in Arkansas. Clinton ended up paying a very large settlement to Paula Jones, which is what we expect the civil justice system will do in the face of substantiated allegations of civil wrongdoing. Clinton also ended up paying a civil penalty for lying within the confines of the civil case, and giving up his law license, and being found in contempt. That is neither more nor less than any other civil litigant. In short, the civil justice system worked. Paula Jones received exactly the sort of recourse that the law permits: she's entitled to be compensated for her suffering, but nothing in the sexual harassment statute adds "and we'll impeach the sumbitch too, if he happens to be President!"

Would you make the same argument if George W. Bush were credibly accused of the same offense in the same circumstances?I certainly would. My disagreement with Bush is political, and should be resolved within the political process: you don't like the scoundrels, you vote them out -- you don't go looking for very typical very human lies in non-presidential settings and use them as excuses to achieve in the impeachment process what you cannot achieve in the election process.

earler
October 18th, 2005, 05:16 AM
Please note that impeach does not mean "removed from office". Here is the defintion from the ahd4:

1.

a. To make an accusation against.
b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

The house voted to impeach clinton; the senate voted against his removal from office.

-er

MollyM/CA
October 18th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Ummm, are you familiar with the phrase 'No use beating a dead horse?'

Judy G. Russell
October 18th, 2005, 03:25 PM
I am familiar with the legal definition of the term; I am also familiar with its general use in the United States, which is shorthand for the entire charge-to-Senate-trial-to-final-vote process.

earler
October 18th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Yes, but you did give an incorrect definition of it, the reason I corrected your error. By the way, the definition is the dictionary's, not just a legal definition.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 18th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Based simply on incorrect usage, I could correct virtually all of your posts for failure to properly capitalize proper nouns. I don't bother, because people understand what you mean. Similarly, I think everyone here (or most everyone) understands that I am using the word in the broad sense in which most people use it.

Lindsey
October 18th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Similarly, I think everyone here (or most everyone) understands that I am using the word in the broad sense in which most people use it.
That certainly is what I assumed you were getting at when you said "meaning generally...".

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 18th, 2005, 11:54 PM
I kind of suspected most people would understand it that way (and I'm pretty sure Ralph used it that way, which is why I responded with the parenthetical).

earler
October 19th, 2005, 08:01 AM
Sorry, but you used it in the wrong way, an error that is all too common. Words may have precise meanings; some don't. However, in this case there is a precise meaning. Just as indictment doesn't mean one has been convicted and wrong doesn't mean right.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 19th, 2005, 10:03 AM
That's why I put it in a parenthetical explaining that I was using it in the commonly understood (even if wrong) way, Earle. At least I capitalize everything correctly.

rlohmann
October 21st, 2005, 08:21 PM
You're concatenating two entirely separate issues:Not really. An ex cathedra pronouncement to the effect that they're separate doesn't make them so.

In that connection, and after rereading (several times) the messages in this thread, I come to the perhaps unsurprising conclusion that we're addressing the situation from two different planets.

You place considerable emphasis, in your responses to me and to others, on your experience as a federal prosecutor. You have every right to do that, of course. However, as a prosecutor, your focus was on misconduct outside of government, rather than within it. The emphasis you place here on that experience suggests to me that you view Clinton's perjury as a pecadillo not worth pursuing, and you wonder what all the fuss is about. You state, for example, that,
you don't go looking for very typical very human lies in non-presidential settings and use them as excuses to achieve in the impeachment process what you cannot achieve in the election process.Put another way, you see the offense in a context in which normal prosecutorial discretion would operate to decline prosecution, and dismiss it as de minimis. You overlook the massive damage that the act does to the very integrity of the United States Government, and label those who are angry about it as mere "Clinton haters."

I was not a prosecutor, but you will certainly not object to my pointing out that I spent considerably more time in government than you did, and had far more numerous occasions than you to deal--as both a manager and as a lawyer--with the kind of misconduct that might or might not attract the attention of the cognizant United States Attorney, but which was nonetheless appalling in the damage it did to the United States and its interests. The effect of that misconduct expands exponentially the higher the individual is in the government hierarchy. (A GS-12 can falsify a job description and distort the pay structure to a small extent; a general officer lied about certain aspects of the purchase of black berets for the Army a few years back. That cost the government millions of dollars.)

The President is the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States. Consequently, to assert that he should not be removed from office for what you see as an offense not worthy of your notice as a prosecutor misses the point. The real question is whether, having committed an act denominated a crime by the laws of the United States, he was fit to continue to hold that office at all.

Clinton should indeed have been removed from office. The research that led you to assert that nobody has ever been criminally prosecuted in the federal courts for this kind of perjury was misplaced because, like Indiana Jones at the beginning, you were digging in the wrong place. What you should have been looking for is the number of small-town magistrates who were not removed from their jobs for lying under oath in a material matter in a judicial proceeding.

Judy G. Russell
October 21st, 2005, 08:41 PM
I understand the viewpoint you bring to this issue. We simply will have to disagree on it. I don't think you treat someone differently with respect to conduct A because at the time the person held job B, unless conduct A directly arose from and impacted job B (hence I would agree with you about a small town magistrate who lied in a judicial proceeding but not about an elected politician lying about something in his personal life).

One of the reasons why I disagree so strongly is that the decision to remove an elected official negates the electoral decision of all the people who voted for him. There are circumstances where that will be appropriate (the gross misuse of government power by Nixon, for example). I just don't think this is in that category.

rlohmann
October 22nd, 2005, 05:02 PM
And with that, I think, we've said all there is to say, and we can do nothing more than agree to disagree.

Now we can fight about something else. :)

Judy G. Russell
October 22nd, 2005, 11:10 PM
There's always baseball... or football... or the weather...

RayB (France)
October 23rd, 2005, 03:20 AM
There's always baseball... or football... or the weather...

BEWARE!! Our BRONCOS are in a town near you! (5-1)

Judy G. Russell
October 23rd, 2005, 10:30 AM
BEWARE!! Our BRONCOS are in a town near you! (5-1)Uh oh... this doesn't look good:
Yards Per Game: DEN 332.7, NYG 336.4
Points Per Game: DEN 21.5, NYG 29.8
Yards Allowed: DEN 333.3, NYG 417.2
Points Allowed: DEN 17.8, NYG 22.8

RayB (France)
October 24th, 2005, 07:25 AM
Uh oh... this doesn't look good:
Yards Per Game: DEN 332.7, NYG 336.4
Points Per Game: DEN 21.5, NYG 29.8
Yards Allowed: DEN 333.3, NYG 417.2
Points Allowed: DEN 17.8, NYG 22.8

As we all know, 'Stats are for losers'. They cannot be weighted by who the other teams played were, injuries, etc.

We have been Bronco fans since 1976 (seems like 1776) and they have always been a 'heart-attack' bunch. How we let the Giants score two TD's in the last Qtr amazes me. The week before against the Pats we almost blew a 25 point lead. The preceding two weeks were 'squeakers' too. Nonetheless, they make for exciting football. The sad part is that we do not get any TV coverage here at all but we still stay current between our daughter, S-I-L, who turn orange at this time of year, plus all our Denver friends. We LOVE football! Teresa knows the game better than most guys I know.

Judy G. Russell
October 24th, 2005, 09:30 AM
I was a bit shocked at the way Denver imploded in that last quarter too. But as you said it does make for exciting games...

I can't imagine not being able to get the games at all. Isn't there anything on the web you can find? That's awful.

RayB (France)
October 24th, 2005, 11:00 AM
I was a bit shocked at the way Denver imploded in that last quarter too. But as you said it does make for exciting games...

I can't imagine not being able to get the games at all. Isn't there anything on the web you can find? That's awful.

We probably could except all we have available is 56K dial-up in our village of less than 600. MAYBE next year.

Judy G. Russell
October 24th, 2005, 10:18 PM
We probably could except all we have available is 56K dial-up in our village of less than 600. MAYBE next year.Ah! That explains it! Yeah, trying to watch video webstreaming on a 56K dialup connection wouldn't be my idea of fun, either. Here's to next year! (I have seriously told my brothers and sister that I will retire to anywhere they want... but it has to have high speed internet access...)

RayB (France)
October 25th, 2005, 04:20 AM
Ah! That explains it! Yeah, trying to watch video webstreaming on a 56K dialup connection wouldn't be my idea of fun, either. Here's to next year! (I have seriously told my brothers and sister that I will retire to anywhere they want... but it has to have high speed internet access...)

With the exception of video, I'm quite happy with the speed I get. My ISP is Wandoo.fr (FranceTelecom) and I use Firefox. My Mac has a 1.25 Gig processor for the usual stuff.

We are tennis fans as well and get more on TV than the States does I would suspect. We recieve three sats on our dish. One is mostly German and the other two are mostly French but we get most of the European countries and the Middle East, as well. The French channels have loads of American programs with some dubbed into French and some in English with French subtitles. The interesting thing is that you really don't need to understand the language to enjoy the programs. Italian game shows are a riot to watch. We can turn on the TV at any time and find something interesting. We don't watch much anyway . . . . we usually talk. (Almost 32 years and we haven't shut-up yet!)

earler
October 25th, 2005, 04:21 AM
Our village has 700 and we got adsl a little over a year ago. Very nice. I get 6 megs download speed. You might look to isdn yourself. I had it until adsl arrived and it is far better than 56k.

-er

RayB (France)
October 25th, 2005, 06:10 AM
Our village has 700 and we got adsl a little over a year ago. Very nice. I get 6 megs download speed. You might look to isdn yourself. I had it until adsl arrived and it is far better than 56k.

-er

Thanks, Earle, I'll check it out.

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 09:38 AM
We don't watch much anyway . . . . we usually talk. (Almost 32 years and we haven't shut-up yet!)As long as you're not fighting, that's a very good thing.

RayB (France)
October 25th, 2005, 02:26 PM
As long as you're not fighting, that's a very good thing.

From time to time we have our differences but after all these years, we know which 'buttons' NOT to push.

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 03:30 PM
From time to time we have our differences but after all these years, we know which 'buttons' NOT to push.Admirable!

earler
October 26th, 2005, 06:47 AM
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


Good: Your wife is pregnant.
Bad: It's triplets.
Ugly: You had a vasectomy five years ago.

2. Good: Your wife's not talking to you.
Bad: She wants a divorce.
Ugly: She's a lawyer.

3. Good: Your son is finally maturing.
Bad: He's involved with the Woman next door.
Ugly: So are you.

4. Good: Your son studies a lot in his room.
Bad: You find several porn movies hidden there.
Ugly: You're in them.

5. Good: Your hubby and you agree, no more kids.
Bad: You can't find your birth control pills.
Ugly: Your 13 year old daughter borrowed them.

6. Good: Your husband understands fashion.
Bad: He's a cross-dresser.
Ugly: He looks better than you.

7. Good: You give the "birds and bees" talk to your daughter.
Bad: She keeps interrupting.
Ugly: With corrections.

8. Good: The postman's early.
Bad: He's wearing fatigues and carrying a shotgun.
Ugly: You gave him nothing for Christmas.

9. Good: Your son is dating someone new.
Bad: It's another man.
Ugly: He's your best friend.

10. Good: Your daughter got a new job.
Bad: As a hooker.
Ugly: She makes more money than you do.




-er