Did any case refer back to the watergate scandal for a defense?
207868
I think you mean United States v. Nixon (Richard Nixon)\n\nnot.\nNixon v. United States is a different case. (Walter Nixon)\n\nSearch for "United States v. Nixon" precedent turn up the following:\n\nCheney v. United States Dist. Court\nHohn v. Unites States. 524 US 236 (1998)\nTrammel v. United States 445 US40 (1980)
667580
Nixon was never impeached.  He resigned before congress brought him to trial.  His vice president, Gerald Ford took over just as the constitution directs.\n\nThe scandal involved around whether or not the president either ordered, or knew about the Republican party's attempt to spy on and discredit the Democratic party in the weeks leading up to the election.  That and whether he attempted to cover up the illegal break in at the Watergate hotel.
104191
It was when Nixon and his boys tried to cover up their involvement in a brake in at the democratic national headquarters located in the Watergate building in Washington D. C.
619589
Clinton lied in court.  thats perjury!
560067
tell me--do you think the democrats in congress wouldnt love to get even for the clinton impeachment?  if there were truly evidence of a scandal....they would be all over it like stink on poop...wondering who is really stupid ...did you know that gullible isnt in the dictionary? go check and see
486640
In American society, at least in theory, no citizen is above the law,\nthat includes Alcee Hastings, a judge impeached in disgrace.\nA lawyer and a judge of the circuit court of Broward County, Florida, and US District Court judge for the Southern District of \nFlorida (1979 to 1989)\nHis charges were for corruption and perjury, a reprehensible offense, by itself.\nAnd then Hastings was elected to the House of Representatives\nin 1992.\nHe is also a standing member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in July 2004\n\nHis impeachment was remanded back to the Senate by Judge Stanley Sporkin after hastings filed suit claimimg that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate.\nHe had been acquitted in a criminal trial.\nBut the Supreme Court ruled in a similar case regarding \nJudge Walter Nixon, who had been impeached and removed, that the courts had no jurisdiction to review Senate impeachment procedures.\nA lower court found crucial distinctions between the two cases, since Nixon had been convicted in a criminal trial and a certified record of his conviction was available to submit to the full Senate\nas probative evidence of his conduct.\nHastings, on the other hand had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate, and not just by a committee.\nSporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review.\nThe jurisdictional issue prevailed on appeal, and Hastings \nimpeachment and removal were re-instated.\nThe Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, when it removed him, but did not do so.\n\nHastings exact charges was for (1989) impeachment by the House of Representatives for bribery and perjury.\nThe Democratic controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting\n$150,000.00 bribe in 1981, in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case.\nHastings became only the sixth Judge in the history of \nimpeachment proceedings in the United States to be removed from office, by the United States Senate.\n\nNow, back to the original question, to let Hastings continue on any federal office capacity is ludicris.\nBy allowing him to continue to hold office, it sends out the wrong message to other US citizens who may think if Hastings can get away with committing a set of felonies, I guess I can too, and it may encourage further corruption and perjury.\nThe penalties on these felonies should be made stiffer, harsher penalties and fines, even incarceration, if need be.\n\nHastings don't even qualify to be a city dog catcher in my \nopinion.\nAll his retirement and perquisites should be suspended.\nindefinitely.\n\nAnd the bar association should revoke his law license, permanently.\n\n\nThats my message. Good luck.\n\n\n\nDonald H. Sites\nsueanddon350@sbcglobal.net
394722
It can continue.  The prosecution may not have been looking to surpress any affidavits, meaning that anything that was submitted by the defense will be allowed.
329189
Convictions, too high a profile case and the evidence is too damning. In the Scrushy case it was debatable whether or not he was bilking Healthosout or just living it up and being irresponsible. Enron and the partnerships was fraud from the beginning.
138747
If the person is saying the things in some sort of public forum, you could sue for libel/slander, but if the person has merely filed charges with the police, the charges and any statements made to the police are given absolute privelege. If the DA proceeds with the charges, knowing that they are substantially untrue, you could sue them for malicious prosecution, but that's pretty hard to prove and probably wouldn't be worth it.
249932
It used to be called "Zealous Advocacy" in the ethical codes.\n\nThe basic idea is that the legal system is adversarial, and that truth is best found when opposing learned individuals vigorously advocate their respective sides of the argument.\n\nThe 6th Amendment also guarantees assistance of counsel, which has been interpreted as effective assistance. Since the prosecutor is likely to be vigorous in seeking conviction (given the nature of the adversarial system), the defense must be equally vigorous.
21292
Yes. District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals\n\nWEEKS v. U S , 245 U.S. 618 (1918)\n\nThis was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded-one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as [245 U.S. 618, 620] to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. 64, 139 C. C. A. 626. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review.\n\nIn the Circuit Court of Appeals the view was expressed [245 U.S. 618, 623] that intent was not an element of the offense charged in the second count and therefore that it was immaterial whether the representations of the salesman had the sanction of the defendant. Complaint is now made of this. But the question is not in the case, the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals not being essential to an affirmance of the judgment. The District Court had expressly instructed the jury that to hold the defendant responsible criminally by reason of such representations it must appear, and appear beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were made by his authority. The record before us does not show that the defendant objected to the submission of this question to the jury in this way; neither does it purport to contain all the evidence. The verdict therefore must be taken as conclusively determining that the representations were made with the defendant's sanction.\n\nJudgment affirmed
319192
Plenty of evidence! \n\nHere's a good place to "start" :
50544
Anyone remember Bill and Hillary Clinton and White Water? Or Bill and Hillary Clinton and the FBI Filegate? Or Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Travelgate scandal? Or Bill Clinton and his alleged rapes in Arkansas? Or Bill Clinton lying under oath?\n\nGet the picture? Anyone can make an argument against someone they disagree with. You might elicit a better response with honest debate if your question didn't start out biased.
650414
i'm not surprised whatsoever. \n\nI mean take a look at just a little bit of history: \n\n* Republican Nixon presidency - Watergate corruption; ended with proof\n\n* Democrat Carter presidency - no corruption\n\n* Republican Reagan/Bush presidencies - Iran Contra and World Bank corruption; ended with proof\n\n*Democrat Clinton presidency - no corruption; never proved any of the things they accused him of - he actually was impeached for stating he didnt have sexual relations with a woman who gave him a bj because he (like a lot of men) didn't believe a bj was sex. Ironically he was impeached for this when he was answering an irrelevant question on the stand for a DIFFERENT accusation. Was a complete setup. And they never found any proof for any of those charges.\n\n* Republican Bush Jr presidency - so far I think it's being called culture of corruption because its his entire administration involved. \n\nWhat I am surprised at is that Rove is going to get away with it.
110044
You have to look at the entire pleading in context.  Unless the pleading is verified under penalty of perjury, none of the allegations can be grounds for perjury.  Furthermore, you need to look at the specific nature of the allegations and the qualifiers.  If the declaration alleges something based on "information and belief" as opposed to personal knowledge, that doesn't support a charge of perjury if determined to be false.  Finally, the phrase "believes and avers" might have a specific meaning under the laws of your state that might be unique.
407162
Yes, but it might be difficult to prove. It is called...i think slander or public defaming or something like that. Despite this, proof of the action(s) might be very difficult to prove, and the cost of the suit might not be reasonable.
189495
His story was to save the American people from going trough any more, and to put watergate behind us. The truth will probably die with Ford but the speculation is it was part of the deal that Nixon made to put Ford in as vice president when Spiro Agnew resigned for takeing money from a contractor when he was governer of Maryland.