Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:40:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Many things internal to the United States are a far greater affront to US
> > dignity (whatever the heck *that* means). Among them, our willingness to
> > seek the impeachment of a President who engaged in a legal sexual affair
> > with a consenting adult,
> the impeachment trial wasn't about the affair, it was about perjury. That
> Man perjured himself, repeatedly, and got away with it. We expect
> politicians to lie, but lying under oath crosses a line.
Actually, I've read a good deal of stuff that points out exactly why it
wasn't perjury. Specifically, the Starr-crossed prosecutors were operating
according to the definition of "sex" or "sexual relations" (I'm not sure
which, at this point) as established in Clinton's previous Paula Jones case.
According to that definition, Clinton did not have "sexual relations" with
Monica Lewinsky, and, as an attorney himself, Clinton knew better than to
volunteer more information than the question actually asked.
So here's the problem: Was Clinton lying? In casual parlance, his
statement was an evasion, technically not false but not exactly 100%
straightforward and true, either. And this corresponds 100% with your
correct observation that "[w]e expect politicians to lie." Was Clinton's
lie perjury? No, because his evasion was not false and was a legal answer
to the question put to him.
Further, Clinton's so-called perjurous testimony was not material to the
case and therefore can't be prosecuted as such. And, most tellingly of all,
do you honestly believe that The Starr Wars would have called off if Clinton
had committed an actionable crime?
Here's one link (of many) that discusses it:
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-clintonperjury.html
Though I suspect that some might simply dismiss the site as biased, the
salient information is apparently sound regardless of the site owner's
politics (and charges of relevant bias must be substantiated before the
argument or conclusion can be dismissed!).
> Personally I'd like to see more politicians brought to task for lying...
> including this current bunch, but that doesn't reduce the magnitude of That
> Man's transgressions, and you know it, Dave!
Heck, I say let the President have as many interns as he wants. And let
Ms. Pres have as many as she wants, too, for all I care. I don't (as I know
you don't) look to my politicians to be my moral guides, so as long as
everyone involved is willing, I don't care where they insert their body parts.
As you imply, though, this would be a better place if politicians were
held accountable for their lies, especially as they pertain to shady oil
deals with foreign powers, for example...
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
