| |
Lee Jorgensen writes:
>
> 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.
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 repeated, but I think I understand
your point.)
I don't buy it, though. If anything, the fact that a DA must decide if
lying under oath meets some "perjury standard" or not makes it more
arbitrary, more subject to abuse, and more likely to be used for
political reasons rather than for justice.
>
> Please ... the Paula Jones case was about to be reinstated.
> [SNIP]
> Why settle if Clinton is at no fault? Why give the appearance of
> admission of guilt?
I can only say it louder. An out-of-court settlement does not imply
guilt. We can only speculate over this and my opinion is he did it to
avoid the continued cost of litigation. I don't fear for Clinton's
financial future, but he doesn't have the Rutherford Foundation
footing his bill for him. He's also defending himself against (I've
lost count, actually) over 15 slap suits that the Supreme Court so
generously opened the presidency to.
>
> 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."
I wouldn't characterize Clinton's lying as being for his own personal
gain or financial well being. He was defending himself in a civil suit
over a personal matter. I'm convinced this is his primary motivation,
defense, not personal gain.
And this goes back to my main point and disagreement initially with
Jim: this is a personal civil matter made political by Clinton's
political enemies. It is not worthy of impeachment status. Considering
it as such dangerously lowers the bar for future presidents.
as evah,
John C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
