Re: On good authority...
- From: James Arthur <dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:30:03 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 24, 7:48 am, MooseFET wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, James Arthur wrote:
You misspeak; the trial re: perjury & obstruction was heard by the
Senate, not a judge.
No, the usual perjury claim against Clinton is about the lawsuit.
That is because it is the place where he did the lie.
One mustn't confuse the scene of the crime with the subsequent,
separate, trial & prosecution.
The judge held that there was no perjury in that case.
You've said this several times. What she actually said on
dismissing P v. BJ (~1/29/98) was that ML was "not essential to the
core issues" of PJ's case. That is, even with this information, PJ
hadn't proven her case. That's not the same as "not germane." That
information might've been essential to a larger argument, one PJ
apparently wasn't able to make, but an element she could've needed.
I think the judge was too intimidated to charge the President of the
United States with so grave an offense as perjury, and there was
considerable doubt about her standing to do so--the White House
certainly thought she could not, that the President enjoyed immunity.
[1]
Judges can cite persons for perjury, but they are not the only ones
who can do so.
So she deferred and left the perjury matter, unprejudiced by her
rulings, to resolution by other legal authorities. Who impeached Mr.
Clinton, tried, and acquitted him, as we've recounted.
So, he hoodwinked her, and she'd based her earlier ruling on that.
But Judge Weber saw the additional evidence uncovered & felt
deceived. So (4/13/99) she cited him for contempt. Read the
ruling...she was furious
Cheers,
James Arthur
[1] e.g., read White House Special Counsel Larry Davis' remarks here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/13/contempt.reaction/
"[...]I question really the constitutionality of a federal judge
trying to impose a sanction on a president of the United States,"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On good authority...
- From: MooseFET
- Re: On good authority...
- References:
- Re: On good authority...
- From: mpm
- 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...
- From: MooseFET
- Re: On good authority...
- From: James Arthur
- Re: On good authority...
- From: MooseFET
- Re: On good authority...
- From: James Arthur
- Re: On good authority...
- From: MooseFET
- 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
|