Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, it most assuredly does.
What Coronado says . . . . :coffeepap
Yes, it most assuredly does.
Or it was about money and not any actual guilt. You can't make these judgements without a solid case. A settlement alone does not speak to guilt.
No, it most assuredly does not. There are lots of reasons to settle that have nothing at all to do with guilt.
That all depends upon how much Jones' silence costs.In Clinton's case it would've been cheaper to pay his lawyers to fight it than to pay Jones hush money...IF he was innocent.
I disagree. A public figure doesn't settle for $850K without a confidentiality agreement unless he's guilty as sin. You just don't want to believe it.
That all depends upon how much Jones' silence costs.
Sorry, but you just don't know jack **** about settling out of court and why it's done, and I don't have the inclination to attempt to pry you loose from your tenacious grasp on ignorance.I disagree. A public figure doesn't settle for $850K without a confidentiality agreement unless he's guilty as sin.
What don't I want to believe? That Clinton was guilty? I think he was guilty, but thanks again for proving how you don't know **** about that which you're talking.You just don't want to believe it.
Why would I waste my time explaining this to you when I know full well that all you will do is deflect, misinterpret, then run away in fear?Silent on what? If Clinton wasn't guilty why did he settle and why would he be worried about Jones' silence?
That all depends upon how much Jones' silence costs.
I dunno, lawyers of the caliber he was using don't work cheap.apparently it cost $850K. if he was innocent, I'm sure his lawyers could've proved it for less than that. :shrug:
Why would I waste my time explaining this to you when I know full well that all you will do is deflect, misinterpret, then run away in fear?
All you need to know is that I'm correct and any possible rebuttal you may come up with is wrong and probably ridiculously uninformed. It'll save us both a lot of time.
Sorry, but you just don't know jack **** about settling out of court and why it's done, and I don't have the inclination to attempt to pry you loose from your tenacious grasp on ignorance.What don't I want to believe? That Clinton was guilty? I think he was guilty, but thanks again for proving how you don't know **** about that which you're talking.
Any more ridiculous leaps and assumptions you would like to make?
I'm not a liberal, so I wouldn't know. :shrug:Yes, you are indeed a legend in your own mind. Interesting how someone is willing to pay 850k for an out of court settlement when innocent of all charges. I am sure that makes sense to a liberal but not anyone else.
:yawn:Your personal attack is completely uncalled for. Further, your post makes no sense. If you don't know how to carry on an intelligent argument, please don't make the rest of us suffer through your flailing.
Do you know why someone would settle if not guilty? There are actually a few reasons. Feel free to Google it and educate yourself.I don't report. Yawn away. You did definitely point out the obvious. You got nothin'.
Do you know why someone would settle if not guilty? There are actually a few reasons. Feel free to Google it and educate yourself.
I could see him settling just to get it out of the papers. He could have settled out of pressure from the party because of an election coming up (I don't remember when all this happened relative to elections). He could have settled to keep things out of the public record that, while not illegal, may have made him look bad. He may have settled because even though he was factually innocent, the case against him was compelling enough that he may have risked losing (remember that in a civil case, the bar is "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a resonable doubt" -- that's a much easier standard).I don't see why Clinton would have settled if he was not guilty. The cat was already out of the bag and his reputation soiled. I don't see what he had to gain by settling. unless...he were guilty of much, much worse and was afraid that if he went to court ALL would come out. :shrug:
settle with Jones to keep the rest of his skeletons in the closet????
Why on earth would any individual settle out of court for 850K if they weren't guilty?
I could see him settling just to get it out of the papers. He could have settled out of pressure from the party because of an election coming up (I don't remember when all this happened relative to elections). He could have settled to keep things out of the public record that, while not illegal, may have made him look bad. He may have settled because even though he was factually innocent, the case against him was compelling enough that he may have risked losing (remember that in a civil case, the bar is "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a resonable doubt" -- that's a much easier standard).
Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other good reasons that do not involve guilt or innocence.
I should have been more clear -- it would no longer be newsworthy after the settlement had been reached, whereas a trial (which would definitely have lasted for weeks, if not months) would have kept the issue in the papers for that whole time.yeah, but none of those reasons were "effective" by settling, it didn't keep it out of the papers, etc. It was still an issue. IMHO, IF he had been innocent, he would've taken it to court, proved it and then said "see, i told you so". :shrug: It's not like he had anything to lose...he was already convicted in the court of public opinion anyway and since it was a civil case there was no chance of him going to jail.
I should have been more clear -- it would no longer be newsworthy after the settlement had been reached, whereas a trial (which would definitely have lasted for weeks, if not months) would have kept the issue in the papers for that whole time.
As to the court of public opinion, he remained pretty popular for his tenure IIRC, so he had very little to gain and a lot to lose by taking it to trial.
I would say that the reality of the situation is that we'll never really know though. Only he and Paula Jones know for sure. :shrug:
Oh, so torture is ok if we're really upset.
You know this is basically how the enemy justifies torturing Americans, right?