As usual you provide bogus criteria.
"What criminal court heard the matter of Clinton's criminal false testimony? What judge presided? Where are the charges recorded? Who charged him? Where is the guilty plea or guilty verdict?
None of these things exist except in your screwed up little head...
You are lying again, I've made no such claims...
Clinton lied, was found guilty of lying by Judge Write in a summary judgement, and he admitted his guilt. All this was a matter of formal court proceeding. Summary judgments do not require the scenario presented by you.
Although Judge Wright decided to find Clinton in civil contempt, she seemed to be saying that Clinton should be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Her language would have justified the ASCCPC citing Rule 8.4(b) in the disbarment petition.
The court did address it thus:
”This is not to say that the Court considers other instances of possible Presidential misconduct in this case unworthy of the Court's attention. In fact, the Court fully considered addressing all of the President's possible misconduct pursuant to the criminal contempt provisions set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 42, but determines that such action is not necessary at this time for two primary reasons. ... ”
Was it criminal? It was obviously criminal to all reasonable persons. Was that made clear in court? Yes it was. Was it necessary to prosecute it? No, the court was tasked with disbarrment and it would have been beyond the scope of necessary evidence.
If we look only at Judge Write's judgement we see that the nature and consequence clearly qualifies as criminal. Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The contemnor is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process.
Clinton was not punished consistent with civil sanctions he was punished consistent with criminal contempt. Bottom line, however, is ask any reasonable man if lying in court is perjury, serious, and criminal. Test of reasonable man, they aren't confused about what the meaning of 'is' is or what 'sexual relations' is. That probably excludes you.
Clinton lied in court and was caught. You are defending him for his unethical behavior after declaring you don't because you lie too. Are you hoping to run for office ... wouldn't surprise me. |
