| |
John Cromer wrote:
> 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.
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 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html )
> 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.
With the amount of evidence available, in my opinion, there was
sufficient information to find Clinton guilty. Clinton does have his
defense fund, that many people have contributed to.
The tone of your last sentence makes me think that the presidency is
"untouchable" from laws, particularly civil actions. I disagree. He
is under the same law as you or I.
> I wouldn't characterize Clinton's lying as being for his own personal
> gain or financial well being.
Then why lie? The only thing that a lie will do, at the time, is get the
liar out of trouble. The lie, at the time, was about the Lewinsky
relationship,
in the Paula Jones case. If he told the truth, then the Paula Jones case
would have went forward, and he would have lost money. Also, his
character (whatever is left) would have been irreparably damaged.
> He was defending himself in a civil suit
> over a personal matter. I'm convinced this is his primary motivation,
> defense, not personal gain.
... over a personal matter, while holding a public office, on public time,
being paid public dollars, in a public building, and then lying to the public.
(there is evidence that he was talking to Congresspersons while being
serviced)
> 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.
This is a civil matter made political by the office of the perpetrator.
I feel that his continuous lies have damaged him, to a point that I will
not trust him, nor will I take anything he says at face value. This is
damaging to HIS presidency, and I feel that he should be removed, and
Gore put in.
Well, at least one point that we probably will agree on, is that neither
the republicans, nor the democrats will place a person with many skeletons
in high office again. Just look at Bob Livingston.
--
Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc.
mailto://jorgensen@bankoe.moc <-- reverse moc
mailto://ljorgensen@NOSPAM.uswest.ten <-- reverse ten
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Impeachment
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
