Re: On good authority...

On Feb 23, 4:53 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:23 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.

It--showing a pattern of Mr. Clinton foisting himself on and/or
expecting favors from subordinates--was central to the plaintiff's
case.

Not in the judges opinion it didn't. Anybody reading the facts would
see a huge difference between someone having an affair with a willing
adult and someone who "expected favors" etc. The judge, like all
reasonable people, can see the huge difference.


More interesting--Mr. Clinton argues that since there exists a
convoluted parsing of his words that, though tortured, is factually
correct (in his mind), he didn't lie.

He asked the court to define "sex". The court did define it. He
answered correctly for that definition. There is no doubt he is a
clever lawyer. The one thing he missed was the bit about not
correcting an obviously mistaken impression. He lied by
misdirection. If it had been a germane topic, it would have been
perjury but it wasn't so there was no perjury.


I call that "telling a Clinton"--a statement intended to mislead, but
which has alternate interpretations, at least one of which is
technically true.

Yes that is exactly what he did. It wasn't germane so he got away
with it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On good authority...
    ... perjury because it was not germane to the case. ... correct, he didn't lie. ... A person's sexuality belongs to the individual, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: On good authority...
    ... perjury because it was not germane to the case. ... correct, he didn't lie. ... He asked the court to define "sex". ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: On good authority...
    ... perjury because it was not germane to the case. ... That is because it is the place where he did the lie. ... He "asked the court to define" is the right ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: On good authority...
    ... subject being lied about be germane. ... etc. Â The holding the hand up stuff is really ritual.- Hide quoted text - ... For example, it can be perjury to lie on a government form, ... Lying in court is perfectly fine if you're not sworn. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: On good authority...
    ... subject being lied about be germane. ... lie from woman: �29 ... oath in order to commit perjury. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)