Re: On good authority...
- From: MooseFET <kensmith@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:23:18 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 23, 8:55 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:3f7dc710-93bd-4311-
a6fd-32b4f6d6e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Feb 22, 7:23 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 22, 5:27 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andy Peters <goo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote[....]
Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job, which of course was
unrelated to his Presidential job.
It was on "company time",by the employer and management of the
intern,BESIDES the huge LIE to the American People,and the PERJURY for
which he was disbarred for a too-short a period.
There was no perjury. Check the record. Perjury requires that the
subject being lied about be germane. The topic on which he lied was
not.
In a civil trial alleging improper relations (sexual harassment) with
his subordinates, he lied about his relations with Monica Lewinsky, a
subordinate.
The plaintiff was entitled to discover this in discovery in support of
their theory that he had such habits, and had improperly pressed
others--namely, had harassed--the plaintiff.
That's pretty important evidence in a he-said she-said affair.
Cheers,
James Arthur
the corrupt Liberals are all too willing to excuse such behavior and
lies,when it's their crook who's in the hot seat.
No, this argument is about whether it was perjury or not. Not about
whether he lied. We know he lied. We also know that it was not
perjury because it was not germane to the case.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On good authority...
- From: James Arthur
- Re: On good authority...
- References:
- Re: On good authority...
- From: mpm
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Andy Peters
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Andy Peters
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Andy Peters
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Andy Peters
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Andy Peters
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Yanik
- Re: On good authority...
- From: MooseFET
- Re: On good authority...
- From: James Arthur
- Re: On good authority...
- From: Jim Yanik
- Re: On good authority...
- Prev by Date: Re: On good authority...
- Next by Date: Re: On good authority...
- Previous by thread: Re: On good authority...
- Next by thread: Re: On good authority...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|