 | | Impeachment —John Cromer
|
| | | 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: Impeachment —Jim Baker
|
| | | | 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: Impeachment —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? 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: Impeachment —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Impeachment —Jim Baker
|
| | | | 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 —John Cromer
|
| | | | 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 —Lee Jorgensen
|
| | | | | 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 —John Cromer
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Lee Jorgensen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —John Cromer
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Lee Jorgensen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) This, to me, is one of the worst things about this whole affair. Saying he didn't have sex with her - ok, that's a lie but I'll grant that it was simply a lie by a gutless adulterer trying to cover his ass. Actually saying things like, "well, (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Impeachment —John Cromer
|
| | | | | | (...) Cool. Thanks for the site. But it does, to my mind, state clearly that lying under oath is perjury. Period. There's no way around it. So we're back to my original point: it's prosecuted so little in this country that turning it into an (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Impeachment —Lee Jorgensen
|
| | | | | | Well ... we could go ad nausium on this subject ... it's getting old ... Now for something completely different ... What about the new Drudge report possibly linking Clinton to a 13-year old boy in Arkansas? (URL) for the whole story. (these guys (...) (26 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Impeachment —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I did some digging and I could not find it either. Well, somebody ELSE said it was, and I should have verified it before I alleged. But I'd be willing to bet (since you can't call me on it, they're all dead now) that what I outlined was what (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: High Crimes and Misdemeaners (was Impeachment) —John Cromer
|
| | | | I think you're right, although it seems to imply that a president could be impeached for jaywalking. The upshot appears to be that whatever the House and Senate consider impeachable is impeachable. as evah, John C. (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
