| |
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 president did commit perjury.
I ask you, why did the president settle the Paula Jones case then?
Even though a settlement supposedly admits no guilt, after many
months of denial, why settle?
I fear that if the president is NOT removed, that the presidency could
become more like a King. He works for You. Would you like an
employee to lie to you?
The real hypocrisy about the whole thing, is that the women's movement
(aka NOW) supported Anita Hill, when Clarence Thomas supposedly
made references about sex. There was no dress with semen and no cigar.
However, currently, NOW supports the president even with these
objects discovered.
John Cromer wrote:
> 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.
>
> You wrote:
> > Bill Clinton has done something that you or I would very likely go
> > to jail for.
>
> I guess this is a point where we disagree. I would argue based on my
> (admittedly limited) experience, you or I would very likely NOT go
> to jail for lying under oath, that the overwhelming majority of people
> who lie under oath, even those who get caught, do not suffer any
> recriminations at all, even when juries disagree. This being the case,
> to argue that it is an offense for which the leader of the U.S., the
> winner of a national election, should be removed from office boggles
> my mind, especially when you add the context -- a personal affair, a
> trial dismissed for lack of merit. To equate this with treason,
> subversion, or aiding and abetting our mortal enemies (such as sending
> missiles to Iran. Yuk, yuk) is simply to set such a low standard for
> high crimes and disdemeanors that I truly fear for the future of the
> presidency.
>
> as evah,
>
> John C.
>
> ps to Larry P: I did a non-case-sensitive search through the 85
> Federalist Papers at
> http://www.augur.demon.co.uk/federalist-papers/index.htm for "high
> crimes" and came up with zip. A more specific reference to a Federalist
> Paper would help me.
--
Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc.
mailto://jorgensen@bankoe.moc <-- reverse moc
mailto://ljorgensen@NOSPAM.uswest.ten <-- reverse ten
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
