 | | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) There is a "perjury standard". The US Code, Title 18, Pt 1, Ch 79, Sec 1621 fully states how perjury is defined. (you can also go (URL) ) (...) With the amount of evidence available, in my opinion, there was sufficient information to find (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) It's a good logical argument: perjury is of greater significance than lying under oath and is a felony to boot, therefore it is a "high crime" when applied to the president. (I'm not sure I agree with your definition, that it has to be (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) Lying under oath != Perjury. They are two separate issues. Perjury is the active and repeated lying under oath, with intent to cover up information, and to thwart the legal system. A Lie, is may not be considered perjury, if it's about (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) I guess my point is that 115 people is a minute fraction of the number of people who lie under oath in this country and that the equation: perjury == treason (for example) doesn't hold. (...) So he wouldn't have to deal with it any more. Cases (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
John, currently there are over 115 people in jail for perjury. Of those 115, at least 5 have come forward to say that their perjury was for a sex related cover-up. Perjury is the thoughtful willingness to lie to the court. I'd say that yes, the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Jim, I do find your argument fairly convincing, at least in the abstract. We shouldn't lie under oath. We should be punished for lying under oath. That assumption should hold. (...) I guess this is a point where we disagree. I would argue based on (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach Lee Jorgensen: : What is actually meant by "High crimes and misdemeanors"? Is it : a grandiose crime that is considered a felony? Or is it a crime by : an official in a high office ... Like the President? Here's a point: Clinton's crime (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
(...) The latter. high is a modifier of "crimes and misdemeanors" and refers to the office held by the alleged perpetrator. See the Federalist Papers. Once, long ago, I even posted a URL to an online version. The other parsing doesn't make much (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
(...) The judges are having trouble deciding if you answered correctly. :-) Thomas Paine wrote some great stuff but Ol' Poor Richard was who I had in mind all right. (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <368BD1ED.FA123C08@c...AM.com>... (...) Ben Franklin?? or was ti Thomas Paine? (...) Matt Marshall $%#$% Vacuum Cleaners Always get my pieces!!! Matt's Lego Page (URL) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
