If Jim McGreevey resigns now and an election is....

held in November, can the Democrats keep the Governorship?

If he resigns now, a special election WILL BE HELD on Election Day 2004.

If the gov. resigns, doesn't the lt. gov step in and complete the full term?

And any resignation before Sept 15th would necessitate a general election in Nov.

and listening to a lot of the comments, it would probably fall back in Republican hands after what this idiot pulled.

Having consetual gay sex is hardly a crime. It's really none of our business and he shouldn't have to quit over such issues. Does any other citizen have to resign from their job if they had an affair? No the problem is with this Puritan society in this country that we live.

GOD DAMN WHY DO SOME OF YOU INSIST ON BEING DISHONEST ON THIS ISSUE? IT'S LIKE HOW SOME IDIOTS CLAIM CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR ADULTERY AS OPPOSED TO THE CRIME HE COMMITTED.

HE IS RESIGNING BECAUSE HE PUT AN UNFIT MAN IN CHARGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR NEW JERSEY, AND IS ABOUT TO BE SUED BY SAID MAN FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND POSSIBLY RAPE.

I hate typing in all caps but the stupidity on this board warrants it.

exactly what crime did Clinton commit?

He didn't lie under oath, you know. According to the definition of "sexual relations" that Starr's lawyers gave, Clinton actually DIDN'T have "sexual relations" with Monica.

Definition of Sexual Relations: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes – 1) contact with the genitalia, arms, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

The above is the definition used by the Starr Lawyers.

Getting a blow job is "intentional touching" of the genitalia "with an intent to arouse of gratify the sexual desire of any person."

You got served, and Clinton lied under oath.

Legal opinion differs. Yes, it's ticky-tacky, but legally valid.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=470645

His defense consisted of an extremely literalistic dissection of the words of the definition. I will suggest that a large part of the problem is that the definition had largely been textualized. A result of textualization is that the resulting text invites a very literal and sometimes even hypertechnical interpretation, and Clinton was only to happy to comply.

if i get my dick sucked, i'm having my genitals touched with intent for sexual arousal. There's no grey area, and anyone who thinks so is simply in denial.

Unless you think you know better than legal scholars, which, considering the condescending attitude in your posts, you just might indeed think.

My personal view is that he probably did not commit perjury based on the evidence we have so far examined. He certainly intended to mislead his questioners in the Jones deposition. But the Bronston case emphasized that intent to mislead is not the legal standard in deciding whether someone made a false statement under federal perjury law. It is up to the examining lawyer to establish a clear record of the witness’s testimony. This is something that the Jones lawyers failed to do. Instead of probing how Clinton understood phrases like “sexual relationship,” they handed them their own definition.
This textualized prescriptive definition provided Clinton with an opportunity to search for loopholes, and at least in my mind, he found them. And when he was asked questions that did not invoke the written definition, the terms that were used, like “sexual relationship” or “sexual affair,” were simply too uncertain at the margins to support a perjury conviction. - Page 43.

since "mouth" is not on that list. As a matter of fact, you could get a handjob too and NOT have "sexual relations" Starr-style.

You can question his honesty and honor, but what he did violated no laws.

and draw more Dems to the polls on 11/2

the GOP would love, and if they can take the office it could give them momentum, we need to spin the waste of money of a special election

... at least according to someone on MSNBC. It would be a special election for governor, they said.

If he doesn't resign immediately, the (Democratic) NJ senate president will be acting governor till the election in Nov. 2005.

If he resigns after 9/3, less than 60 days before the election, then the senate president is acting governor until the regular gubernatorial election in 2005.

If he left today, there would need to be primaries and then the election of a new governor in November.

If the roles were reversed, Democrats would be crying foul. The Republicans will beat this to death. You'll likely hear as much about how Dems are infringing on NJ voters' rights to elect a governor, then you'll hear about McGreevey.

There is a point to their argument. The Senate President remains head of the Senate while acting as Governor. A very powerful position for a person elected to serve only a small part of the state.

hands! Remember California?

and I hope you'll be defending the Republicans when they do the exact same thing.

the same thing too! They will do WHATEVER is needed to win and I will do the same thing too. Yes, I will apply a DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

eliminate DUer's! TOO MANY DUer's are like Alan Colmes. Look at how well he has done.

:eyes:

No wonder Democrats loose.

television show.

Compare that to Phil Donahue, he's been cancelled twice.

ie how many repug governors and how many democratic ones? I know we are outnumbered--but don't have the exact numbers at hand.

Donny D. was acting gov for nearly a year. Life went on just fine.

Course he became gov. under more "honorable" circumstance. The esteemed Whitman became head of EPA, no scandal there, and the Dems worked quite nicely with Donny D.

I'm certainly not suggesting McGreevey leave pre-9/3 or even pre-11/15. He can't be "made" to resign though the Repubs will harpp on this to no end. They will not mention Donny D's tenure as Acting Gov.