Clinton Eligible, Once Again, To Practice Law

[DealMonkey]

A couple of points: Imagine what Bill could have gotten away with had Congress been controlled by the Democrats during his two terms? Oh man, the horror. And similarly, don't you now wish Congress was controlled by the Dems? At least someone would hold this administration's feet to the fire over some of their more <ahem> unconstitutional and potentially illegal activities as of late.

Ahhh well, now we see the folly of one-party politics.

Clinton Eligible, Once Again, To Practice Law

By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 17, 2006

After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.

Mr. Clinton's suspension from the Arkansas bar, which he formally agreed to a day before leaving office in 2001, expires on Thursday. It is unclear whether the former president will seek reinstatement to the bar, but officials in Arkansas have been preparing for such a request.

"There are people who have had this date marked on their calendar," the executive director of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, Stark Ligon, told The New York Sun. He said court rules prevent him from confirming or denying whether Mr. Clinton has filed an application to be reinstated until the committee takes some action in the case.

However, Mr. Ligon said such applications are routinely approved. "The presumption fairly would be that reinstatement should be granted unless some good cause could be shown why it should not," he said. Mr. Ligon said any request from Mr. Clinton would be sent by fax or mail to a seven-member committee panel, which usually acts promptly. "We can generally get a turnaround within a week to 10 days," the bar official said.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton, Jay Carson, declined to comment Sunday on whether the former president wants to rejoin the bar. The attorney who represented Mr. Clinton in earlier proceedings related to his law license, David Kendall, also declined to be interviewed on the subject.

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton has shown no sign of being encumbered by his lack of a law license.

[...]

Linkage

 

[BlancoNino]

He only lied under oath. I mean, how bad is that for someone who practices law?

 

[DealMonkey]

It's really bad.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
He only lied under oath. I mean, how bad is that for someone who practices law?

He got what he deserved.

 

[Genx87]

The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's really bad.

:thumbsup:

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

Yeah *laugh*. Impeaching someone for something actually substantial...

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Genx87
The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

Yeah *laugh*. Impeaching someone for something actually substantial...

Oh come on, wiping your ass isn't impeachable

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

I believe the Repubican definition of that is a mandate ...

Also:
Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70 percent of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51 percent of those 31-49, 50 percent of those 50-64, and 42 percent of those older than 65. Among women, 56 percent favored impeachment, compared to 49 percent of men. Among African Americans, 90 percent favored impeachment, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics, and 46 percent of whites.

But like the question asked, it all hinges on whether or not the wiretapping is found to be illegal.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
He only lied under oath. I mean, how bad is that for someone who practices law?

He got what he deserved.

Yeah, he was tried by his peers, and was punished accordingly. Unfortunatly the same standards don't apply now. Guess lieng about a blow job is the ultimate sin that can be commited, and I am not excusing that, just pointing out that some people are too damned hypocritical.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Genx87
The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

I believe the Repubican definition of that is a mandate ...

Also:
Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70 percent of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51 percent of those 31-49, 50 percent of those 50-64, and 42 percent of those older than 65. Among women, 56 percent favored impeachment, compared to 49 percent of men. Among African Americans, 90 percent favored impeachment, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics, and 46 percent of whites.

But like the question asked, it all hinges on whether or not the wiretapping is found to be illegal.

and 48% disagreed whoopie do. Impeachment is meant for actual crimes, until he is charged it is all rhetoric.

Do you think 100% of the people polled understand the first thing about what the law states?

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]

and 48% disagreed whoopie do. Impeachment is meant for actual crimes, until he is charged it is all rhetoric.

Do you think 100% of the people polled understand the first thing about what the law states?[/quote]

The question said, "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

The legality is yet to be decided. To completely dismiss it offhand is highly hypocritical. Clinton was investigated for far less by Ken Starr.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's really bad.

:thumbsup:

Heh, that's bad alrite. Clintion claimed he didn't know the difference between oral sex and actual sex. Just like this admin claimed they didn't know what's the real intel on WMD and what's made up. The difference is, the action of one resulted in a pissed intern, and the action of the other resulted in 2000+ dead American, many more injured, plus countless dead and injured Iraqis.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

and 48% disagreed whoopie do. Impeachment is meant for actual crimes, until he is charged it is all rhetoric.

Do you think 100% of the people polled understand the first thing about what the law states?[/quote]

The question said, "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

The legality is yet to be decided. To completely dismiss it offhand is highly hypocritical.


[/quote]

Yeah but you dont impeach people because you dont like what they did.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's really bad.

:thumbsup:

Heh, that's bad alrite. Clintion claimed he didn't know the difference between oral sex and actual sex. Just like this admin claimed they didn't know what's the real intel on WMD and what's made up. The difference is, the action of one resulted in a pissed intern, and the action of the other resulted in 2000+ dead American, many more injured, plus countless dead and injured Iraqis.

That is all relative, maybe if Billy wasnt getting his knob bobbed on he could have actually taken out OBL when they had their plethora of chances and saved a total of 5K American lives by stopping 9-11 before it could happen and the Iraqi and Afghan war that happened after.

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]

Heh, that's bad alrite. Clintion claimed he didn't know the difference between oral sex and actual sex. Just like this admin claimed they didn't know what's the real intel on WMD and what's made up. The difference is, the action of one resulted in a pissed intern, and the action of the other resulted in 2000+ dead American, many more injured, plus countless dead and injured Iraqis.[/quote]

That is all relative, maybe if Billy wasnt getting his knob bobbed on he could have actually taken out OBL when they had their plethora of chances and saved a total of 5K American lives by stopping 9-11 before it could happen and the Iraqi and Afghan war that happened after.

[/quote]

I would wager the constant invesigations by Starr kept him much busier than some 'Monica action'. The former head of the FBI was on Rush last summer, and he stated that Clinton was ineffective due to the investigations. Now since the investigations found nothing else, and had to settle on a lie about a blow job it was nothing but a witch hunt. Using simple logic you could claim that Clinton's ineffectiveness was caused by Starr, or even moreso his Republican handlers who couldn't stand having a Democrat as a president. I'm not pissed that Clinton got a blowjob, that is his and his wifes business, I am upset he lied about it to the American people, he was tried and punished, but that doesn't excuse the Starr Witch hunt.

You can't deny that if / when the dems get control of either house, and a full blown investigation is launched, where people are actually put under oath and held accountable, you won't be outraged if no hard charges are brought. You will claim it was nothing but a partisan witch hunt. The difference here is that Clinton has been tried and judged, but Bush still has alot to answer for.

 

[Genx87]

I would wager the constant invesigations by Starr kept him much busier than some 'Monica action'. The former head of the FBI was on Rush last summer, and he stated that Clinton was ineffective due to the investigations. Now since the investigations found nothing else, and had to settle on a lie about a blow job it was nothing but a witch hunt. Using simple logic you could claim that Clinton's ineffectiveness was caused by Starr, or even moreso his Republican handlers who couldn't stand having a Democrat as a president. I'm not pissed that Clinton got a blowjob, that is his and his wifes business, I am upset he lied about it to the American people, he was tried and punished, but that doesn't excuse the Starr Witch hunt.

You can't deny that if / when the dems get control of either house, and a full blown investigation is launched, where people are actually put under oath and held accountable, you won't be outraged if no hard charges are brought. You will claim it was nothing but a partisan witch hunt. The difference here is that Clinton has been tried and judged, but Bush still has alot to answer for.

Clinton was ineffective because he was afraid to offend anyone. If they targeted ME men then he was a racists, if they blew up a family get together that got OBL he was a child killer.

Staff members from his administration have on more than one occasion said he just didnt know what to do with terrorism. He would grow a blank face and just sit there dumbfounded at what to do.

When you read the 9-11 commish report it is obvious these descriptions are most likely true. He had a chance to get OBL in 1998 at some compound in Afghanistan but decided against it because there may be collateral damage.

If Clinton couldnt handle an investigation and be an effective leader, he should have stepped down. That is one lame excuse.

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]Clinton was ineffective because he was afraid to offend anyone. If they targeted ME men then he was a racists, if they blew up a family get together that got OBL he was a child killer.

Staff members from his administration have on more than one occasion said he just didnt know what to do with terrorism. He would grow a blank face and just sit there dumbfounded at what to do.

When you read the 9-11 commish report it is obvious these descriptions are most likely true. He had a chance to get OBL in 1998 at some compound in Afghanistan but decided against it because there may be collateral damage.

If Clinton couldnt handle an investigation and be an effective leader, he should have stepped down. That is one lame excuse.
[/quote]

Look how the repubs chastised him for Bosnia? And Bosnia turned out to be a good thing to do with essentially zero casulties.
And as far as being ineffective, that came from the former head of the FBI, who was a hard core right winger. He stated Clinton was ineffective because of the investigations, I am going a step farther and saying the investigations were a republican witch hunt. The repubicans tried to hamstring Clinton and then blame him for their actions.

Now Bush under the republicans has absolutely free reign with almost zero accountability (plame investigation ongoing, though not on the scale of what Starr did) and you complain. That is where hypocrisy comes into play.

 

[maluckey]

Clinton is only eligible to apply to have his suspension removed, not begin practicing law. He was disbared for something totally different than Monica Lewinsky. He lied under oath in Arkansas. His chances are practically non-existant to regain his ability to practice law.

He was found to have lied in the Lewinsky case as well. That is Twice, once after the first lie that got him disbarred. It shows a pattern...

 

[Genx87]

Look how the repubs chastised him for Bosnia? And Bosnia turned out to be a good thing to do with essentially zero casulties.
And as far as being ineffective, that came from the former head of the FBI, who was a hard core right winger. He stated Clinton was ineffective because of the investigations, I am going a step farther and saying the investigations were a republican witch hunt. The repubicans tried to hamstring Clinton and then blame him for their actions.

Now Bush under the republicans has absolutely free reign with almost zero accountability (plame investigation ongoing, though not on the scale of what Starr did) and you complain. That is where hypocrisy comes into play.

Why are your quotes always broken?

Anyways you have your opinion, I have mine. I think mine is based more in reality than yours. The 9-11 commish report helps to backup my contention he was afraid to do his job due to not wanting to offend anybody. The result is OBL not being taken out and the 9-11 plan put into action.

An investigation in no way should have kept Clinton from doing his job.

Bosnia was and should have been a European issue. We forced them to deal with genocide in their own backyard. There were casualties and hardships and money spent on a mission that truely had nothing to do with us.

At least this war in the ME has some association with what we are trying to accomplish.

I have never complained about the Plame case, I just think it like many things from the left has been overblown and mis-represented.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Look how the repubs chastised him for Bosnia? And Bosnia turned out to be a good thing to do with essentially zero casulties.

How was Bosnia a good thing...Clinton promised a quick withdrawal within a year to two years, and yet ten years later we are still entrenched there...the Balkans mission has had a tangible and lasting effect on unit readiness and morale, and has cost a pretty penny too...also, you can thank the Balkans mission at large for the American military's dependance on Halliburton.

Or take Kosovo for example...we invaded Kosovo, and bombed the hell out of Serbia, under the premise that genocide was occurring against Kosovar Albanians...yet the mass graves that Clinton used to justify the invasion never surfaced...I am sure this comforts the families of those killed as collatoral damage in our drive to oust Milosevich.

Or how about Somalia, since you liberals like to bring up the body armor debate...Clinton refused to deploy heavy armor to Somalia for fear that the American public would perceive it as an escalation...so our troops were essentially left vulnerable with light skin vehicles to perform a dangerous combat mission...and then, after we get our hands a little bloody, Clinton pulls out and "makes friends" with the very tyrant we were trying to oust...way to go Bill.

Or how about the Aristide coupe in Haiti...how was that pre-emptive strike any different then Iraq...and Haiti is far worse off now because of American military involvement.

The criticisms against Clinton go well beyond blowjobs, and using the criteria many of you use to criticize Bush, Clinton's foreign policy engagements should fall under similar scrutiny. In summary:

Bosnia/Kosovo: Pre-emptive/reactive strikes against an enemy that was not an imminent threat to the United States, based on faulty intelligence data.

Somalia: Failure to provide soldiers with the equipment and protection they required to save their lives.

Haiti: American imperialism at its finest.

This does not excuse Bush...not by a long shot...but Clinton hardly deserves to be placed on a pedestal.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Genx87
The dems dont even hold either chambers and hold the admins feet over the fire.
If they had control you can believe instead of fighting a war we would have impeachment proceedings on everything from wiretappings to how Bush wipes his ass in the morning.

The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

I believe the Repubican definition of that is a mandate ...

Also:
Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70 percent of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51 percent of those 31-49, 50 percent of those 50-64, and 42 percent of those older than 65. Among women, 56 percent favored impeachment, compared to 49 percent of men. Among African Americans, 90 percent favored impeachment, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics, and 46 percent of whites.

But like the question asked, it all hinges on whether or not the wiretapping is found to be illegal.

and 48% disagreed whoopie do. Impeachment is meant for actual crimes, until he is charged it is all rhetoric.

Do you think 100% of the people polled understand the first thing about what the law states?

I don't know about 100% of the people but I can point to one with out a clue on the law.

A president can not be charged with a crime except in the impenchiment.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's really bad.

:thumbsup:

Heh, that's bad alrite. Clintion claimed he didn't know the difference between oral sex and actual sex. Just like this admin claimed they didn't know what's the real intel on WMD and what's made up. The difference is, the action of one resulted in a pissed intern, and the action of the other resulted in 2000+ dead American, many more injured, plus countless dead and injured Iraqis.

That is all relative, maybe if Billy wasnt getting his knob bobbed on he could have actually taken out OBL when they had their plethora of chances and saved a total of 5K American lives by stopping 9-11 before it could happen and the Iraqi and Afghan war that happened after.

Yeah, like we were just so successful at trying on his second-in-command...except we wouldn't have even had the advantage of drones live on the scene, so Clinton's strikes would have been less accurate and had NO real-time targeting information, because they would have been cruise missles fired from offshore - over half an hour away AFAIK.

It just seems so _easy_ when you say it: "taken out OBL"...

Future Shock