Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bill Clinton Tapped For Jury Duty!

This is topic Bill Clinton Tapped For Jury Duty! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001840

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2003, 11:43 PM:

Here is the link to the article....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030301/ap_on_re_us/clinton_jury_duty

I can only hope this shuts him up for a while so GWB can get the job done with one less baboon harping in his nonsense....
Mark

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-01-2003, 11:55 PM:

Any kind of publicity Mr. Bill can get the better he likes it. Personally if I where a judge I would drop him as he ws disbarred for reasons of bad judgement and shouldn't be relied on to give good judgement. Shit, dont get me started, I just hope the female jurors keep there guard up and if he comes towards them with a cigar in his hand they better run.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-02-2003, 12:08 AM:

What does Clinton getting picked for jury duty have to do with Bush doing his job?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-02-2003, 12:56 AM:

Good question. I haven't heard of him commenting on Dubya's policies although as a private citizen he has every right to.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-02-2003, 10:26 AM:

Can a convicted perjurer be on a jury? I don't think he really knows the difference between right and wrong does he?

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-02-2003, 10:49 AM:

I don't think he was convicted, just disbarred.
Convicted would mean Jailed right?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2003, 11:21 AM:

Mike, Don't you ever watch TV? Keeping Slick Willie on the jury keeps him off TV and out of the limelight..... [thumbsup]

Mark

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-02-2003, 02:52 PM:

I have no problems with Clinton being in the limelight. I just dont see what one has to do with the other. I'm sure Bush could care less about Clinton's opinions anyways.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 03-02-2003, 03:42 PM:

I agree with Mike Heenan. If Bill Clinton is on the jury why would Bush care. I think it would be interesting if Clinton was on the jury. I hope he gets picked.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-02-2003, 05:15 PM:

Mark,

I have known you for some time now at the DCinemazone (Movie Sound Page) forum and here at Film Tech and I consider you my friend. It is a very well known fact that you and many conservative Republicans never liked Bill Clinton ever since he entered the political limelight. The man was given no peace of mind by his many political enemies all through eight years of his presidency and now has become a subject of ridicule by people like you and others. Yes, the man had made some very stupid mistakes that almost cost him his job but he is still very much loved my most Americans. I would appreciate it very much if you would please give the man a break by not posting articles about him that has been very offensive to people who still admire him like myself and a few others here. Thank You! [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-02-2003, 06:06 PM:

quote:
not posting articles about him that has been very offensive to people who still admire him like myself and a few others here.

There are also postings making fun of Bush in this forum, and some conservatives may take offense at that. But even though Im not a fan of Bush and was a Clinton supporter, I would hate to see each other's speech curtailed in the room. Because if they give up their Clinton bashing, I'll have to give up my Bush bashing, and to quote the Sam Neil character in JURASSIC PARK, "where's the fun in that? [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-02-2003, 08:55 PM:

I don't think Clinton or his supporters have anything to apologize for insofar as his doing the job of President is concerned. He may have mishandled matters when his private life was dragged into the limelight as a result of a politically motivated lawsuit but that is of little concern to me and I cannot imagine (short of politics, of course!) why it would be of any greater concern to the public than the personal failings of many prominent members of the opposition like Gingrich and Hyde, etc. Everything Mr. Bush does is about helping the rich and deflecting criticism of those policies, like for one thing portraying even the mere discussion of this issue as "class warfare."

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2003, 09:11 PM:

Hi Claude,
While I don't personally care for Slick Willie much GWB also has his share of problems too. His speech impediment is one major problem....and at times its hilarious.
But my real problem with the liberal democrats is that they get up and ridicule the conservatives solution to different problems but they have not once come up with any alternative solution. So yes, I will definately continue to make fun of them until they provide some constructive input, that makes sense, to todays problems. Tom Daschle is a prime example of that sort of tom foolery, Hillary is another. For me, its just difficult to believe that someone as dishonest as Bill Clinton is would ever be earmarked for Jury Duty.
Mark

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-02-2003, 09:45 PM:

"Tom Daschle is a prime example of that sort of tom foolery, Hillary is another."

Sorry Mark, I'll try to be more serious in the future. [Wink]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-02-2003, 10:48 PM:

What was the deal when Bush took over and there was all that vandalism and stuff removed from the white house?
Anybody remember that?

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-02-2003, 10:53 PM:

I think the Clintons kept some furniture or something like that but later gave it back. Another thing I remember was that the W's from all the keyboards were missing.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-02-2003, 11:00 PM:

Hi Mark,

I do agree with you about the Democrats in congress of not being focused on the nationl agenda. Although President Clinton was having problems with Republicans, his fellow democrats in congress also caused him a lot of grief. One classic example is the NAFTA agreement that he was successful in getting passed with mostly Republican support. The majority of the American people supported NAFTA and I did too but all of the major unions in the country opposed the bill and a lot of congressional Democrats listened to the Unions instead of the people when it came time to vote. Although I would like to see a Democrat in the White House in 2005, all of the announced Democratic candidates that are running are no different than Mr. Bush when it comes to the possible war with Iraq and have no solutions of their own to turn the economy around.

-Claude

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-02-2003, 11:37 PM:

I wonder how much of a difference it would make if Bush 43 was a better speaker? Ole Clinton was pretty good at speeches.

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 03-02-2003, 11:57 PM:

Sam,

Slick Willie wasn't necessarily good at his speeches, as any President has his speechwriters lay it out for them... Unless, of course, you revert to the statement "I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky" which, had to been thought up all on his own.. or mayeb with a little influence from Hillary.. She wore the pants anyway.. [Eek!]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 03-03-2003, 12:04 AM:

That was a trick statement. [evil]

Heh Heh
One then that sticks in my mind other than my finger was how he used his hands, you remember, the thumb was cradled on top of his pointing finger.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-03-2003, 09:01 AM:

In many/most jury trials, the jury pool is selected and then the lawyers and the judge sit down and go through the jury list. The interview potential jurors as needed. Each side gets a set number of "challenges" with which they can eliminate candidates.

A peremptory challenge is one where the lawyer doesn't need a specific reason to eliminate a candidate. (S)He can simply say, "Peremptory challenge", and the juror is out. It doesn't matter if there is a good reason or if he just doesn't like the way the guy combs his hair.

A challenge for cause is where the layer has to say why he wants the juror out. Prior contact with the defendant/victim/witnesses... Conflict of interest... Exposure from the media... stuff like that. The other lawyer gives his reasons for NOT eliminating the person and the judge makes the decision.

Each side has a limited number of challenges so it sometimes gets to be a situation that feels like the final minutes of the Super Bowl where the coach is trying to use his time-outs to the team's best advantage.

Any lawyer worth his salt would simply eliminate him from the panel with a peremptory challenge. No explanation needed.
If the lawyer didn't want to use a peremptory (for strategic reasons) he could challenge for cause on the grounds that such a public figure as an Ex-President would unfairly sway the rest of the jurors. You'd have a situation where it'd be like there was only one juror. Either, everybody else would vote with him becasue he was the President or everybody would vote AGAINST him for spite because of his poor public image. Either way, it wouldn't be a trial anymore. It would be a Bill Clinton popularity contest.

Furthermore, a judge would have the power to eliminate him from the pool even before jury selection takes place. He could say that having the President on the jury would bring undue negative media attention to the case, thereby making it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial.

No... I don't think Clinton will sit on any jury for a while, if ever. It's good enough that he is in the jury pool. It shows that he's trying to be a "good citizen"... Unless, of course, Bill gets his lawyers to get him out of it! Then it's back to being "Slick Willy"!

Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 03-03-2003, 03:05 PM:

"For me, its just difficult to believe that someone as dishonest as Bill Clinton is would ever be earmarked for Jury Duty."

Yeah I wonder how many men that have cheated on their wives and lied about it have been chosen for jury duty. One or two? WHATEVER! We all know it was wrong, but we also all know it happens all the time. How long will it take for this to be dropped? The dead dead horse can't take a beating much longer. :-)

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-03-2003, 04:18 PM:

Are you saying there's no difference between the average Joe Blow* cheating on his wife and then privately lying to her about it; and the President of the United States lying to the country while UNDER OATH?

*Just picking a name at random. [Wink]

I have no problem with Bill Clinton getting jury duty except it seems like it would be a major distraction to all parties involved in the trial process.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-03-2003, 05:22 PM:

I remember Ollie North proudly declaring that he lied to Congress under oath regarding the Iran -Contra scandal (a bit more important than a BJ), and afterwards he was seen such a hero that some wanted him to run for President.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-03-2003, 05:58 PM:

I guess always returning to the blow job is a good way to distract people from the real issue. But the fact is that Slick Willy was not impeached for getting a blow job from the pizza girl. And in my opinion anyone that refers to that issue is just trying to dodge the real issue. I'm sure both sides would like to forget about the BJ, but Slick's "legacy" will follow him forever.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-03-2003, 06:58 PM:

Just as Slick Willie goes off for jury duty Hillary shows her love for King Bush and his crusade.

Let's see, that's 2 chicken hawks in the coop with a 3rd . . .