On one level, I don’t really care whether David Letterman has been dallying with his female employees. On another, I am struck by the hypocrisy of it all. But there is also a question that has been flopping around in……

Being blackmailed by an avaricious scumbag is God’s revenge on Dave?

Ha ha ha, what a stupid question from someone who doesn’t believe in God.

By the way, the answer is yes.

6 Renzulli Rd
Norwalk, CT 06851-4408

(203) 847-1209

“Keep your pecker out of the payroll”

Too bad letterboy never heard that sage advice, or simply chose to ignore it!!

Yeah, as a moral matter, not as a legal one. Did you not see that when I typed it the first time?

Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Guess not.

I’ll admit my view is controversial and most people don’t like it, but they can never seem to refute it.

Well the only real test is to put him in front of a jury and ask for a conviction.

Not every one who commits a crime is convicted. Not even close. The lack of a conviction does not change the reality.

CWforFreedom on October 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Well duh.

The *whole argument we’re having* is not that Clinton wasn’t convicted, it’s that even if he’d been tried, I don’t think he would have been convicted.

That, by the way, is a minority viewpoint – not just here, but most places. I’ll admit my view is controversial and most people don’t like it, but they can never seem to refute it.

Not every one who commits a crime is convicted. Not even close. The lack of a conviction does not change the reality.

But I would be a murderer from the commission of the act.

Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Yeah, as a moral matter, not as a legal one. Did you not see that when I typed it the first time?

And if I beat you on the head with an axe and you died, I would not be guilty of murder until a jury verdict was read.

Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Look, I’m not denying that Clinton was dishonest, he was dishonest as hell, but perjury is a legal standard. You’d be guilty of murder in the eyes of God as soon as you commit the crime (really before that, but that’s a differnet discusion), but in the eyes of the law you’re not guilty of murder until a court has said so or you have confessed to it.

All the other stuff you said re: perjury looks pretty irrelevant to me. In order to prove perjury, you have to prove the false statement was material. And until you can draw the line from Clinton having a consensual sexual affair with Lewinsky as probative as to whether Clinton sexually assaulted Jones without violating the FRE, he’s still not guilty.
Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM

And if I beat you on the head with an axe and you died, I would not be guilty of murder until a jury verdict was read.

You think ‘fidelity’ has no set definition; how about “extortion”? You think the tort of sexual harassment is too tiresome to litigate, how about extortion? Surely we can explore the thing?

Extortion is illegal. Being unfaithful to your spouse (drawing a broad definition of what that could mean) is not. I don’t think sexual harassment is too tiresome, I think it should be litigated most of the time it actually occurs. A boss having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harassment. That’s my point.

All the other stuff you said re: perjury looks pretty irrelevant to me. In order to prove perjury, you have to prove the false statement was material. And until you can draw the line from Clinton having a consensual sexual affair with Lewinsky as probative as to whether Clinton sexually assaulted Jones without violating the FRE, he’s still not guilty.

Because one of those things (the real extortion) is illegal, and the other (Letterman making a joke he shouldn’t have made) is not. It doesn’t matter if his wife was OK with it, if it’s against the law then it’s against the law. Remember we all said that when Polanski’s victim said she didn’t care about it anymore? Remember how we used that standard then? Just a couple days ago?

Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 11:48 AM

You think ‘fidelity’ has no set definition; how about “extortion”? You think the tort of sexual harassment is too tiresome to litigate, how about extortion? Surely we can explore the thing?

I don’t think perjury holds up because the lie has to be material – this was in the Paula Jones case – what does Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky have to do with Jones? I assume they were trying to say that Clinton exhibited generalized “bad behavior with women” That’s almost always illegal under FRE 404(b) (the propensity box – you can’t use prior acts in a case because it will prejudice a jury), but there are exceptions under FRE 415 in civil cases predicated on sexual assault as Jones v. Clinton was, for sexual assault and child molestation.

The problem is that no one ever alleged that Clinton sexually assaulted Lewinsky. She was a willing participant. Those questions shouldn’t have been asked and by definition his answer is immaterial.

There’s a judge in the room to settle such questions. The witness, especially a deposed party, can never be allowed to give false answers on the legal theory that some other authority will probably rule the matter immaterial. Otherwise, anybody could lie under oath about anything. For instance, I could falsely swear an alibi for OJ Simpson the night he didn’t kill Nicole–he didn’t do it, his whereabouts are immaterial to the murder inquiry, so I can’t perjure myself lying about an immaterial fact.

The standard has always been to give truthful answers to stupid questions, and then, your attorney will have it struck out from consideration.

As to whether he lied – the question in the Jones deposition (BTW going from memory here so if I’m wrong, I’ll cheerfully concede) where they claimed that he lied is the one where the guy asked him “whether it was accurate that his lawyer claimed that “he was not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.” His lawyer *actually* said, “He *is* not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.”

Then Clinton answered, “It depends on your definition of is – if it means is and never was, that’s one thing. If it means that it’s still ongoing, then that’s true.”

The lawyer didn’t follow up. He didn’t ask the questions he had to ask (probably because he knew he’d lose when Clinton’s lawyers objected).

Did he lie? Maybe – I might be forgetting something.

Since Clinton has sworn he testified falsely, I’m not prepared to argue with him.

Proud Rino, who can eagerly look forward to many more years of Dave basking in acclaim while calling Sarah Palin and her daughters sluts and whores.

Gator Country on October 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I’m not a fan of Letterman and thought the joke against Palin’s daughter was over the line. That doesn’t mean that he deserves to be blackmailed.

This demonstrates perjury can’t hold up against Clinton…how?

Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Well bravo to you for looking up the statutes.

I don’t think perjury holds up because the lie has to be material – this was in the Paula Jones case – what does Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky have to do with Jones? I assume they were trying to say that Clinton exhibited generalized “bad behavior with women” That’s almost always illegal under FRE 404(b) (the propensity box – you can’t use prior acts in a case because it will prejudice a jury), but there are exceptions under FRE 415 in civil cases predicated on sexual assault as Jones v. Clinton was, for sexual assault and child molestation.

The problem is that no one ever alleged that Clinton sexually assaulted Lewinsky. She was a willing participant. Those questions shouldn’t have been asked and by definition his answer is immaterial.

As to whether he lied – the question in the Jones deposition (BTW going from memory here so if I’m wrong, I’ll cheerfully concede) where they claimed that he lied is the one where the guy asked him “whether it was accurate that his lawyer claimed that “he was not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.” His lawyer *actually* said, “He *is* not in a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.”

Then Clinton answered, “It depends on your definition of is – if it means is and never was, that’s one thing. If it means that it’s still ongoing, then that’s true.”

The lawyer didn’t follow up. He didn’t ask the questions he had to ask (probably because he knew he’d lose when Clinton’s lawyers objected).

Did he lie? Maybe – I might be forgetting something.

But was Clinton’s lying or dishonesty material? To the Jones case?

Nope.

Well if his wife knew about the $2 million threat and didn’t object, who cares? Can we call it extortion then? Two adults signing an exclusive use contract for intellectual property– yeah that’s just what our overburdened court system needs!

Chris_Balsz on October 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Because one of those things (the real extortion) is illegal, and the other (Letterman making a joke he shouldn’t have made) is not. It doesn’t matter if his wife was OK with it, if it’s against the law then it’s against the law. Remember we all said that when Polanski’s victim said she didn’t care about it anymore? Remember how we used that standard then? Just a couple days ago?

He lied under oath and tried to influence another person to also lie under oath. That is perjury. Get over it.

Blake on October 3, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The former thing is not necessarily perjury, and the latter thing is most definitely not perjury.

Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM

He lied under oath and tried to influence another person to also lie under oath. That is perjury. Get over it.

Don’t think that message hasn’t been made well known to any woman even suspected of thinking about coming forward with her tale of harassment, along with the implied threat to her livelihood. I expect that will be sufficient to convince them to just suck it up and keep toeing the Hollywood company line.

I agree. It’s bad in that industry.

I can’t see a lawsuit emerging.

I’m sorry, do you know what extortion is? Do you know what words mean? Any of them?

Proud Rino on October 3, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Well if his wife knew about the $2 million threat and didn’t object, who cares? Can we call it extortion then? Two adults signing an exclusive use contract for intellectual property– yeah that’s just what our overburdened court system needs!

In reality, most women I know who work in that industry complain constantly about the overt sexism and hostility toward women. I doubt they will file charges.

But as a poster on another blog pointed out, it just takes one.

And there’s always one who won’t necessarily go along to get along.

AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:32 AM

And the instant that one comes forward, her career, not to mention her entire life, will be completely and utterly destroyed. This is an industry, after all, that has decided that drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior when one of their own does it, and we have no right to object because they are the only ones with any “moral compass.”

Next to that, a scumbag has-been comedian forcing a few women to sleep with him if they want to keep their jobs is pretty tame stuff. Don’t think that message hasn’t been made well known to any woman even suspected of thinking about coming forward with her tale of harassment, along with the implied threat to her livelihood. I expect that will be sufficient to convince them to just suck it up and keep toeing the Hollywood company line.

Letterman will come out of this just fine, to the immense relief of libtards like Proud Rino, who can eagerly look forward to many more years of Dave basking in acclaim while calling Sarah Palin and her daughters sluts and whores.