Re: On good authority...

On Feb 23, 6:01 pm, mpm <mpmill...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:13�pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm really curious now....

Generally, what are your feelings about this Bill Clinton sex scandal
with Monica Lewinsky?
Are you OK that it happened? Furious that it happened? Don't care
either way? Upset that he mostly got away with it? Thought he should
be removed from office? Or what???

You left of jealous :)

Bill Clinton isn't the first man who even fooled around on his wife.
In doing so he I assume broke a promice to Hillary. It does not
reflect well on his character but that is far from enough for removal
from office.

Clinton used sneeky lawyer tricks to avoid admitting that he had
fooled around on his wife. This also does not reflect well on his
character but again doesn't rise to the level where there should be
any question of his removal.

All of the people involved were adults and there is no question about
Monica being willing.



I'm just trying to get the frame of reference here.

Personally, I could care less. And it's not a partisan issue for me.
A person's sexuality belongs to the individual, not to any
relationship (marriage, etc..)
And to think otherwise, frankly, is a bit delusional IMO.

And when I say "sexuality", I'm not just talking about some act
committed behind closed doors. I'm talking about the way a person
thinks, fantacizes about sex, the way the brain works and hormones are
produced, (how they're "wired" internally) and the way all that
manifests in the physical world. Note: much of which is controlled by
biology and completely outside the "control" of the individual.

Not to say that their behavior can't be counter to this biology.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence (in Dover case)
    ... >>>Supposedly people lie every day in divorce proceedings, ... >> There probably aren't enough jails in the world to hold the output of one ... Perjury is not any easy charge to prove ("intent" is more ... The demarcation usually resides in the message the prosecutor wants to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: impeachment
    ... No, sex is, to a certain extent, a part of the issue. ... find something, anything, to hold against Clinton. ... Under numerous state laws of perjury, ... lie about it today. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Thinking of you, freaks
    ... Glad to see you've dropped the perjury claim - taken some advice from ... I'm sure laughing at you, but didn't lie to anyone, including you. ... dickless freak: ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: OT Asshole sighting
    ... It was WRONG to openly lie to the people, ... It's unclear you understand that it's about perjury as well. ... it's not about the blowjob, then don't bring it up with no reference to ... much more benign than ones which harm lots of people (like ones which lead ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence (in Dover case)
    ... >>>I think they ought to try them for perjury. ... >>I was initially of the opinion of letting sleeping dogs lie, ... and I do think it will send a message to other public officials ... > They lied ABOUT their religion. ...
    (talk.origins)