| |
John Cromer wrote:
> Lee Jorgensen writes:
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
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 non-material information. Also, there are more than 115 people,
however, that is the number that is currently in jail. This is not the
number
of people lying under oath on probation, or have just gotten a fine. The
people that lie under oath usually are charged with perjury if the DA deems
it worthy.
Perjury != Treason. I never said it did. However, since the office
concerned
is a high office, Perjury can be considered a "high crime".
Besides, Perjury is a felony.
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> So he wouldn't have to deal with it any more. Cases without merit are
> often settled just to avoid the hassle and cost.
Please ... the Paula Jones case was about to be reinstated. It was about
a week or so away. Settling out of court, to me, means that where was
enough information to find against the defendant, but would cost even more
to continue with the case.
Why settle if Clinton is at no fault? Why give the appearance of admission
of
guilt?
>
> > 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?
>
> I imagine I've been lied to by a number of presidents many times. I
> take it in stride depending on the seriousness of the issue I'm being
> lied to about. If it's about bombing Cambodia, I get irritated. If
> it's about diddling somebody with a cigar, ... well, you can figure out
> the rest.
True ... you have to take into consideration of what the circumstances
are ... if it for the good of the country, and is part of National
Security,
I would consider a lie ok.
However, if it's for ones' own personal gain, and financial well-being,
I'm not as forgiving. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
--
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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
