 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
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? Should there be two sets of laws? You or I would be prosecuted (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Beaker wrote: <snip> Yup. Tangential but appropros: "those who would give up a little freedom in exchange for security are doomed to soon have neither" is a paraphrase of a famous quote. For 100 points, who said that? (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Impeachment
|
|
Also sprach John Cromer: : I would not say "testimony under oath must be truthful" is a throw-away : issue. It is not, however, in my opinion, the cornerstone that underpins : our legal system. I am convinced that people lie under oath every day in (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
Also sprach Matt Hanson: : much. I think that is what the real issue is. Some people just aren't : willing to give up their cozy lifestyle for a better *quality* : society... Now we get to the heart of the issue. You want others to change their (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Impeachment
|
|
Well, Jim, I have read your long post regarding the impeachment. I have read it several times. It is well-reasoned and argued. Still, I disagree. Let me explain, and I hope to do it without the name- calling, labeling and slander that seems to (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here we go again
|
|
(...) <big snip> This group was trying to enforce religious code - I'm not in favor of that, at all... But if that's what they let rule them, so be it. We live in a society where money rules, not people. We are a profane and perverse people. You (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Here we go again
|
|
Matt, I found an exmple of a functioning theocracy for you. The following story appeared on cnn.com recently. Keep in mind that these people are only trying to enforce a simple moral code, not regualting morality or anything: Afghan police crack (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Not to pull a Clinton or anything... but sir, it clearly depends on the meaning of the word "full". (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
Message-Id: <slrn78itgo.1gd.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) p.IWANTNOSPAM.com> Reply-To: cjc@newsguy.com Followup-To: (...) If you walk into a room FULL of LEGO every day I'd say that makes you pretty small or pretty flexible. :) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
|
(...) Garshk, I would *hope* so... and, no doubt, you do walk into such a full room whenever you can. I know I wouldn't mind doing so. :) I gotta start going to KKK's Thursday night poker games... From Tom McDonald Anti-spam block in place. (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
