wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 8:37 am, "Mike" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Aug 24, 8:50 pm, "Mike" wrote:
Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you
believe
are correct is not a crime.

There's something in the oath about telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. (Well, at least as much as the
lawyers will let you get away with.)

Only the legal profession could get away from the whole truth, and
coming up with "misleading but factually correct". Deliberately
misleading is lying, and every parent worth a toot knows to teach this
to the kids. Clinton never grew up.

Now, just to emulate Clinton and the definition of "is":
Providing answers you believe are correct is not a crime, is true if
you believe you are telling the whole truth. It might be crime if you
twist the words of the question or the answer, such that you knowingly
intend for the hearer of the answer to not get the answer to the
question.
For example:
Mom: Did you throw your little brother into the lake?
Big brother: No.
But in his mind, he thinks: I threw him into the air over the
lake. He fell into the lake of his own accord.

Only a lawyer, which, come to remember, Clinton is. Or was. Or is
again. Define "lawyer".

Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there. The best you can come
up
with is YOU think Clinton committed perjury, which is clearly your
opinion.
And still not one of you who believes Clinton committed perjury can come
up
with any sort of reasonable explanation as to why he was never so much
as
indicted for that crime.

Unfortunately, such hair-splitting does occur.
And not all things that should be get indicted. Politics on the
defense is also at play here.

Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year
investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you?

Go to any good bookstore and browse the section on relationships. All
of the books on sexual relations will include oral sex; the common
definition of such activity clearly falls within the bounds of sex, as
any boy or girl or parent knows. Or did, until the Clinton era, when
kids started getting quoted as saying it wasn't sex, and Bill said
so. ONLY A LAWYER could come up with a definition in which a BJ
isn't sex. Only a lawyer could have a problem with the definition of
'is'.

In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted
by the court) worked for Paula Jones. You might want to do a bit of
research on the actual facts of the case before you spew such nonsense.

It seems he paid a price, albeit smaller than he should, for the
perjury/lying or whatever you choose to call it. He paid a settlement
to Jones; he was disbarred for 5 years (should have been for life for
such a bad example), etc.

Try defending yourself against a politically motivated lawsuit AND a
politically motivated $100 million prosecution and see what price you pay.
The Jones lawsuit was dismissed, by the way, and the settlement paid was a
fraction of what it would have cost Clinton to defend an appeal. In the
end, Paula Jones got nothing other than the notoriety that allowed her to
pose nude for a men's magazine. Even Ann Coulter called her a fraud. A
lawsuit is also not a prosecution of a crime. The disbarment is even more
of a joke. Clinton traded his law license (which he had no intention of
ever using) to make the entire $100 million special counsel investigation go
away forever (again he would have paid millions to continue to defend
himself). If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind
to everything except your own ideology.

I suppose legally OJ isn't a murderer either. Still, I'm not going to
a cutlery show with him any time soon, as I have no doubt he shoved a
knife into a couple of people.

He was also indicted for that crime.


The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not.
The
USSC says factually correct but misleading answers do not amount to
perjury.

As the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the land, their opinions are what
matters, not yours.

Something many democrats never accepted after the 2000 elections.
And clearly, they are not always right. They just win.

Nothing like completely changing the subject when you can't deal with not
being "right", eh?