Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
The point is that the suspicions are not 'unfounded' as I have taken some time and made some effort to explain. But those who will justify ANYTHING done by a Democrat of course will not be impressed no matter how much 'evidence' is put out there.
How about I copy and save this post of yours to have at the ready the next time you decide to make a comment about a Republican who has been accused of something but for which there is no 'proof'. Will you demand as much from yourself in being objective and dismissing unfounded allegations as you seem to require of those of us who don't share your ideology?
Saving it sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm sorry, but your and your group saying he is a sleazbag with a history of being a sleazbag. just didn't hit me as founding for the claims. Perhaps you can remind me of what that foundation was, or point out which post you did that in. Accusations are not evidence. Accusations from a rabid group of mud slingers are not relevant. The fact that there is a loud echo chamber of those accusations isn't a foundation.
Oh for heavens sake. Google:
Gennifer Flowers
Monika Lewinsky
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Juanita Brodderick
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Dolly Kyle Browning
LD Browning, Arkansas state trooper's, deposition
among others
Look up why Clinton was held in contempt of court by a New York Judge, why he has been barred from arguing before the Supreme Court of the USA and why he was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar. Did all of it hold up as uncontestable under closer scrutiny? Of course not, but a lot of it did. You simply cannot get around all those years of that kind of history without admitting there is a definite sleaze factor.
Even with a "D" after his name.
And that leaves room to at least raise eyebrows when it comes out that Epstein had at least 22 telephone numbers for Bill Clinton and/or his aides, some on speed dial, and that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to an island where it came out in court that sex orgies with young women, at least some underaged, were the norm. Epstein went to prison for it and remains on the sexual offender registry to this day.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
The accusations about Clinton are not "unfounded." There's actually quite a large foundation for them.
Ok. Lets hear that foundation. Unproved accusations don't count.
Would you really trust leaving your young daughter, sister, or other female family members with Bill Clinton? Think about that for a bit.
No problem
You're demented.
If, as you claim, Clinton did nothing wrong - why was he suspended at all?Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
The point is that the suspicions are not 'unfounded' as I have taken some time and made some effort to explain. But those who will justify ANYTHING done by a Democrat of course will not be impressed no matter how much 'evidence' is put out there.
How about I copy and save this post of yours to have at the ready the next time you decide to make a comment about a Republican who has been accused of something but for which there is no 'proof'. Will you demand as much from yourself in being objective and dismissing unfounded allegations as you seem to require of those of us who don't share your ideology?
Saving it sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm sorry, but your and your group saying he is a sleazbag with a history of being a sleazbag. just didn't hit me as founding for the claims. Perhaps you can remind me of what that foundation was, or point out which post you did that in. Accusations are not evidence. Accusations from a rabid group of mud slingers are not relevant. The fact that there is a loud echo chamber of those accusations isn't a foundation.
Oh for heavens sake. Google:
Gennifer Flowers
Monika Lewinsky
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Juanita Brodderick
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Dolly Kyle Browning
LD Browning, Arkansas state trooper's, deposition
among others
Look up why Clinton was held in contempt of court by a New York Judge, why he has been barred from arguing before the Supreme Court of the USA and why he was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar. Did all of it hold up as uncontestable under closer scrutiny? Of course not, but a lot of it did. You simply cannot get around all those years of that kind of history without admitting there is a definite sleaze factor.
Even with a "D" after his name.
And that leaves room to at least raise eyebrows when it comes out that Epstein had at least 22 telephone numbers for Bill Clinton and/or his aides, some on speed dial, and that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to an island where it came out in court that sex orgies with young women, at least some underaged, were the norm. Epstein went to prison for it and remains on the sexual offender registry to this day.
Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
Who's this "we" shit? You got a turd in your pocket?... and what were you doing during your visits to the island, Bubba?Keep in mind people, young girls were held captive and repeatedly raped on this island. That has been proven. And Bill Clinton was there. So you do the math. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. These young girls still haven't received real justice.
Damn, you ran out of steam pretty quick didn't you? You got nothing but slanderous photo shop pictures? Oh well, we knew that's all you had to start with.
And no one needs to point out for the HUNDREDTH time here that BUBBA visited this PEDOPHILE SEX SLAVE ISLAND on MANY OCCASIONS, just so you nipple headed jack offs can pretend he DIDN'T, or did but just sat around and played PATTY CAKE, PATTY CAKE, BAKERS MAN with all the little under aged sex slaves.
You're a moron, and no more proof of that is needed either.
Now go pound your pud like the nasty little pervert you are, you ignorant little scab picker.
You should change your name to Bullshit.Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
If, as you claim, Clinton did nothing wrong - why was he suspended at all?Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
The point is that the suspicions are not 'unfounded' as I have taken some time and made some effort to explain. But those who will justify ANYTHING done by a Democrat of course will not be impressed no matter how much 'evidence' is put out there.
How about I copy and save this post of yours to have at the ready the next time you decide to make a comment about a Republican who has been accused of something but for which there is no 'proof'. Will you demand as much from yourself in being objective and dismissing unfounded allegations as you seem to require of those of us who don't share your ideology?
Saving it sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm sorry, but your and your group saying he is a sleazbag with a history of being a sleazbag. just didn't hit me as founding for the claims. Perhaps you can remind me of what that foundation was, or point out which post you did that in. Accusations are not evidence. Accusations from a rabid group of mud slingers are not relevant. The fact that there is a loud echo chamber of those accusations isn't a foundation.
Oh for heavens sake. Google:
Gennifer Flowers
Monika Lewinsky
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Juanita Brodderick
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Dolly Kyle Browning
LD Browning, Arkansas state trooper's, deposition
among others
Look up why Clinton was held in contempt of court by a New York Judge, why he has been barred from arguing before the Supreme Court of the USA and why he was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar. Did all of it hold up as uncontestable under closer scrutiny? Of course not, but a lot of it did. You simply cannot get around all those years of that kind of history without admitting there is a definite sleaze factor.
Even with a "D" after his name.
And that leaves room to at least raise eyebrows when it comes out that Epstein had at least 22 telephone numbers for Bill Clinton and/or his aides, some on speed dial, and that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to an island where it came out in court that sex orgies with young women, at least some underaged, were the norm. Epstein went to prison for it and remains on the sexual offender registry to this day.
Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
You should change your name to Bullshit.Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Politics
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
Looks like you've been teabagged.You should change your name to Bullshit.Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Politics
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
It's common practice when a lawyer voluntarily suspends their state license for 5 years for the court to send them that notification. There is nothing unusual about that. Why don't you look some of this shit up for yourself instead of just believing every crazy teabagger claim you hear?
Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.
The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.
And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.
Of course, most of what you say is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with the manufactured, unfounded accusations being hurled over this. Come back when you have some legitimate evidence, because until then, it's nothing more than more birther shit.
The point is that the suspicions are not 'unfounded' as I have taken some time and made some effort to explain. But those who will justify ANYTHING done by a Democrat of course will not be impressed no matter how much 'evidence' is put out there.
How about I copy and save this post of yours to have at the ready the next time you decide to make a comment about a Republican who has been accused of something but for which there is no 'proof'. Will you demand as much from yourself in being objective and dismissing unfounded allegations as you seem to require of those of us who don't share your ideology?
Saving it sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm sorry, but your and your group saying he is a sleazbag with a history of being a sleazbag. just didn't hit me as founding for the claims. Perhaps you can remind me of what that foundation was, or point out which post you did that in. Accusations are not evidence. Accusations from a rabid group of mud slingers are not relevant. The fact that there is a loud echo chamber of those accusations isn't a foundation.
Oh for heavens sake. Google:
Gennifer Flowers
Monika Lewinsky
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Juanita Brodderick
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Dolly Kyle Browning
LD Browning, Arkansas state trooper's, deposition
among others
Look up why Clinton was held in contempt of court by a New York Judge, why he has been barred from arguing before the Supreme Court of the USA and why he was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar. Did all of it hold up as uncontestable under closer scrutiny? Of course not, but a lot of it did. You simply cannot get around all those years of that kind of history without admitting there is a definite sleaze factor.
Even with a "D" after his name.
And that leaves room to at least raise eyebrows when it comes out that Epstein had at least 22 telephone numbers for Bill Clinton and/or his aides, some on speed dial, and that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to an island where it came out in court that sex orgies with young women, at least some underaged, were the norm. Epstein went to prison for it and remains on the sexual offender registry to this day.
Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
Bill Clinton the lawyer Ban ending - politics NBC News. . .On Clinton's last full day as president, Jan. 19, 2001, he agreed to a five-year license suspension. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue criminal charges against him after he lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Deal with Starr
Clinton accepted the penalty under a deal with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray, a successor to Kenneth W. Starr. The panel voted to disbar Clinton for five years and impose a $250,000 fine. Clinton has paid the fine.
Any lawyer under suspension can ask for reinstatement at any time but even after the suspension period a reinstatement is not automatic. Clinton would have to apply for reinstatement and his application would have to be reviewed by a committee, said Stark Ligon, executive director of the professional conduct committee. Ligon would not say whether Clinton has applied for reinstatement. . . .
He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Can you highlight the voluntary part for me, plz?He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
That must be where the $25,000 fine comes in.He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
No. That is not what my source said. He asked to voluntarily relinquish his license rather than undergo all the penalties and other stuff that would have been involved had he been removed involuntarily which they had already decided to do.
That must be where the $25,000 fine comes in.He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
No. That is not what my source said. He asked to voluntarily relinquish his license rather than undergo all the penalties and other stuff that would have been involved had he been removed involuntarily which they had already decided to do.
I think he had to "admit wrongdoing" or something like that. Basically it was a plea bargain. Nobody wants to see an ex-President sitting in jail.That must be where the $25,000 fine comes in.He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
No. That is not what my source said. He asked to voluntarily relinquish his license rather than undergo all the penalties and other stuff that would have been involved had he been removed involuntarily which they had already decided to do.
Working from memory, I believe the fine was to pay the attorneys who brought the disbarrment proceedings against Clinton in the first place. The payment of the fine and agreement to not challenge a five-year suspension/disbarrment, which I believe was a couple or three months after Clinton left office, ended once and for all the whole Whitewater investigation and then the Paul Jones/Lewinsky investigation that resulted in the obstruction of justice and perjury conviction and/or court rulings.
I don't believe Clinton has ever applied to renew his law license. Since he nets an average of several hundred thousand dollars per speech for public speaking, I'm pretty sure practicing law is not among his priorities right now, but so far as legal prosecution goes, he and Hillary are now in the clear, at least as the law is concerned, for anything they did before or while he was in office.
Like Boedicca said though, it's fascinating watching his supporters twist themselves into knots trying to make him look good or at least not as bad as his press.
It's absolutely disgusting that someone like this man exists. That he was connected to a man who was once the most powerful in the world is something we should all be ashamed about.
This world is covered in darkness. We need to invite light back into our lives and be the people our founders were expecting us to be.
Maybe we should determine if any of these allegations are like, you know, true?
Didn't Mrs. Cosby say the same thing?
Sure she did, and it was perfectly reasonable for her to say that at the time. There has been lots more evidence since she said that though.
He...voluntarily suspended his own license? You sure? The NY Times disagrees with you. Please note the date:He voluntarily suspended his own license for 5 years. Otherwise, there were fees and other obligations required to maintain his license. He was president, and probably wasn't going to be representing anyone anyway so he withdrew it himself. It is a common practice, and renewal after the five years is pretty much standard procedure.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court
Published: October 1, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court - NYTimes.com
Why don't you read your own post? He voluntarily suspended his own state license, and this is from your post
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Have you got a lot of shit wrong!! I guess that disbarment thing is like the born in Kenya thing. Once it's out there teabaggers will believe it forever, no matter how many times it's disproven. Accusations are not statements of fact. Believe what you want. You are too far gone for me to help you.
