Re: On good authority...

On Feb 23, 2:28 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:24 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 23, 10:35 am, mpm <mpmill...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 22, 10:23�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.

Question: �Who old are you
lie from woman: �29

If the true age was not germane to the case this is not perjury.

The BJ was a BJ which made all those who weren't getting any very mad.

Don't you also have to be under Oath to commit purjury?

Not really. If you walk into a court room and say it and it is
germane that is enough. The same applies to testifying to congress
etc. The holding the hand up stuff is really ritual.

Why then did *** and w make such a big fuss about White House staff
testifying before Congress without being sworn?

They didn't want to compromise executive privilege. (Namely, the
principle that the President's advisors cannot legally be compelled to
discuss or reveal that advice.) The White House offered colloquies,
reports, interviews, but these <> testimony.

But you've asked the wrong question. The right question is "Why did
Congress' Democrats want sworn testimony?"

Answer: "So the staff could be prosecuted (if they lied)."

Cheers,
James Arthur
.

Quantcast