| |
Lee Jorgensen writes:
>
> (you can also go http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html )
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 impeachable offense is wrong.
[Snippage]
>
> 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.
You are correct in your assumption that I disagree with the Supreme
Court ruling opening the president to civil suits. The president is
arguably the most powerful man on the planet. Almost every decision
he makes involves peoples' lives, often in a life-and-death manner.
This, in my opinion, outweighs a civil matter, which in most cases
can wait, especially if it is valid. The last thing someone in this
position needs is to be defending himself or herself from a bunch of
politically-motivated, garbage suits.
The notion that the President is just like you or me is wrong. You
or I would have had a fair trial by now. Clinton has only been
deposed and prosecuted.
> > 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.
Defendants in civil suits generally lie to avoid weakening or losing
their case, not because they hope to GAIN financially. Attempting
to avoid a loss -- defending oneself -- is not the same as seeking
gain and is a perfectly sensible and understandable goal for anyone.
>
> > 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.
This line of argument could be used to keep him from having sex with his
own wife in the White House. ("Oh my God! They were doing it in public!")
Presuming they do, of course, heh ....
> (there is evidence that he was talking to Congresspersons while being
> serviced)
LOL! Good for him. Poor judgement? Perhaps. Impeachable? No way.
[More Snippage]
>
> This is a civil matter made political by the office of the perpetrator.
This, I don't understand. What has Clinton done but defend himself?
How is simply defending yourself from attack making this political?
> 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 I never trusted him to begin with. I think I understand him. He
is a master pol and compromiser and he is so good at it, it infuriates
Republicans. He stopped their so-called revolution dead in its tracks.
Every time they went to the mat, the Reps had to compromise down or get
their butts kicked in the court of public opinion. This is the real
motivation behind the impeachment attack -- rage and revenge. The
irony is, no matter whether they win or lose, it is the last nail in
their coffin. For better or worse the Dems win no matter what the
outcome.
> 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.
Probably true, but sad. Personal indiscretions in years past do not
necessarily make bad leaders.
as evah,
John C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Impeachment
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
