Prez Oath meaningless?
streek53
oath in a sexual harrassment trial that was ruled to be not material.
What is the point of this?
Clinton has made a frontal assault on the Constitution that makes Watergate
pale in comparison. Mitchell went to jail. Reno flouts the law with
impunity.
But why is this worse than Watergate?
Because our national media are much more willing to accept naked,
unconstitutional power grabs from Democrats because it's all in the family.
This is why Republicans don't do fundraisers in Buddhist temples.
Can you imagine the heat THIS would have generated?
ale...@my-dejanews.com
"streek53" <stre...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Clinton has taken the Presidential Oath twice. Moreover, he didn't take this
> oath in a sexual harrassment trial that was ruled to be not material.
> What is the point of this?
> Clinton has made a frontal assault on the Constitution that makes Watergate
> pale in comparison.
So, getting head and lying about it is worse than having a personal team of
thugs and criminals to pull off your dirty tricks, then covering it up?
Mitchell went to jail. Reno flouts the law with
> impunity.
Evidence of this would be nice.
> But why is this worse than Watergate?
> Because our national media are much more willing to accept naked,
> unconstitutional power grabs from Democrats because it's all in the family.
Bullshit.
> This is why Republicans don't do fundraisers in Buddhist temples.
> Can you imagine the heat THIS would have generated?
>
>
The Republicans haven't raised funds in buddhist temples, but the Christian
Coalition is a huge right-wing political fundraising group that poses as a
legitimate religious groups.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jonathan Leffingwell
this
>> oath in a sexual harrassment trial that was ruled to be not material.
>> What is the point of this?
>> Clinton has made a frontal assault on the Constitution that makes
Watergate
>> pale in comparison.
>
>So, getting head and lying about it is worse than having a personal team of
>thugs and criminals to pull off your dirty tricks, then covering it up?
No, but the thing you libs like to keep ignoring (we call it "denial") is
that the lying about getting his putter polished under oath seems to be
perjury, which is a felony. Nixon perjured himself, though that was largely
ignored due to the more serious charge of obstruction of justice.
By the way, The Tormont Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
defines perjury as follows:
perjury: noun. 1) Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading,
or incomplete evidence or testimony by a witness under oath in a judicial
proceeding, whether given in court or by affidavit. 2) Any violation of an
oath or promise.
So, in order to clear Clinton of perjury, you have to keep a straight face
when you say that he truly did believe that fellatio was not really sex.
Also, the favorite liberal contention that "yeah, but it was a now-dismissed
civil case" is rendered moot, since definition one above says "a judicial
proceeding"...that's civil, criminal, etc.
I will concede that committing perjury is not as severe as obstruction of
justice; however, it is still a felony. I don't care how great the economy
is, I do not want a felon running our country.
> Mitchell went to jail. Reno flouts the law with
>> impunity.
>
>Evidence of this would be nice.
Evidence of what, Mitchell going to jail? Um, check the papers?
Evidence of Reno flouting the law? How about not appointing an IC to look
into the obvious violation of American campaign finance law in the 1996
election? And please spare me the "what's so obvious?" line. If you've
seen Charlie Trie, James Riady, et. al., on the news, it's not because they
have nice success stories!
>> But why is this worse than Watergate?
>> Because our national media are much more willing to accept naked,
>> unconstitutional power grabs from Democrats because it's all in the
family.
>
>Bullshit.
That's it? That's your rebuttal? The contention is made that the media
accepts Democrat power grabs because "it's all in the family," and your
response is..."Bullshit." Wow, thanks for the insight! What a deep, moving
point. You say "Bullshit" to that contention, so hey...I'm now convinced of
your point! Why don't the lawyers of America try that?
Prosceutor: "Ladies of gentlemen of the jury, we have shown today the
horrible acts of violence committed today by the defendant through the
testimony of law-abiding citizens and experts. In light of such obvious
evidence, further closing arguments on behalf of the prosecution are
unnecessary. We rest."
Defense: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in light of everything he just
said and the experts and witnesses just said...Bullshit! Thank you"
>> This is why Republicans don't do fundraisers in Buddhist temples.
>> Can you imagine the heat THIS would have generated?
>>
>>
>
>The Republicans haven't raised funds in buddhist temples, but the Christian
>Coalition is a huge right-wing political fundraising group that poses as a
>legitimate religious groups.
Um, if that's not a non sequitir, I really don't know what is. That's like
saying, "Well, the Democrats haven't broken into any hotels for campaign
secrets of the other party, but hey...The National Organization for Women is
a huge left-wing political fundraising group that poses as a legitimate
women's rights group!" Your rebuttal to the point of Democrat money
laundering is that the Christian Coalition donates to Republicans??? At
least the Christian Coalition is legally allowed to give money!
Fester986
>Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
>defines perjury as follows:
>
>perjury: noun. 1) Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading,
>or incomplete evidence or testimony by a witness under oath in a judicial
>proceeding, whether given in court or by affidavit. 2) Any violation of an
>oath or promise.
>
Sir, while the dictionary commands a much more impressive array of the powers
of connotation, Amerian law is not derived from the dictionary. I am not a
lawyer, nor could I see myself becoming one, but the defintion of perjury is
very tight. If Clinton can show that he consisently viewed the definition of
sex as the one that he was given by Ms. Jone's lawyers, he responded within
that definition. Therefore not perjury, slimy yes, but illegal no. It is an
interesting sidebar that Monica Lewinsky maintains the same definition of
sex.... "intercourse"
Dave
JLasz
>>or incomplete evidence or testimony by a witness under oath in a judicial
>>proceeding, whether given in court or by affidavit. 2) Any violation of an
>>oath or promise.
>>
>Sir, while the dictionary commands a much more impressive array of the powers
>of connotation, Amerian law is not derived from the dictionary. I am not a
>lawyer, nor could I see myself becoming one, but the defintion of perjury is
>very tight. If Clinton can show that he consisently viewed the definition of
>sex as the one that he was given by Ms. Jone's lawyers, he responded within
>that definition. Therefore not perjury, slimy yes, but illegal no. It is an
>interesting sidebar that Monica Lewinsky maintains the same definition of
>sex.... "intercourse"
>
>Dave
>
>
so slimy is okay with you?
jlasz
Fester986
Fest...@aol.com wrote:> Therefore not perjury, slimy yes, but illegal no.
jl...@aol.com wrote>so slimy is okay with you?
>
>jlasz
Yes it is tolerable to me in order to maintain the rule of law that Mr. Starr
wishes to uphold. I would rather allow a slimeball to get off than to engage
in criminal witchhunts.
Dave