Angry

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
::

Clinton lied under oath.


What do *you* believe was his lie?


According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
business but his.

DID CLINTON LIE?: DEFINING “SEXUAL RELATIONS”
PETER TIERSMA*

With the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton
now a distant memory, we can step back and consider the matter
somewhat more dispassionately than was possible in the midst of
such an intense and highly politicized debate. The focus of the
impeachment hearings was on whether Clinton perjured himself and
engaged in obstruction of justice when answering questions
relating to the nature of his relationship with a former White
House intern, Monica Lewinsky. I will limit my observations in
this Article to the question of whether Clinton committed perjury,
and in particular, I will focus on whether he lied when he denied
having had a “sexual relationship” with Lewinsky.

Yet the real subject of this Article is not the Clinton
impeachment, nor is it primarily about perjury law, although I
will have things to say about each. It is really about ...

"Larry Dighera" wrote
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
::

Clinton lied under oath.


What do *you* believe was his lie?


According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.

Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
the other person right from the start.

When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he knew exactly what
the word "sex" meant and what it implied to his audience, regardless of how
much technical BS people want to throw into the equation after the fact.

It's just too bad that common sense is so rare these days in the US.

"Nick Danger" wrote in message
. ..
Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
the other person right from the start.

You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction?"

"Peter Duniho" wrote
"Nick Danger" wrote in message
. ..
Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to
deceive
the other person right from the start.

You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction?"

Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement. Or, he
may have been lying.

"Nick Danger" wrote in message
...
Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement.

IMHO, he should have said something like "the CIA tells me they know for a
fact..." I don't say that I know something unless I actually do. Bush
obviously could not have known WMD existed, since they eventually turned out
not to. So for him to claim he did know such, had to be a lie.

In my opinion, since Bush did not *personally* know of the WMD, his
statements claiming unequivocable knowledge of them were lies. He probably
doesn't see it that way, and I *know* all those Bush supporters out there
don't see it that way. But I certainly do. His statements made NO
allowance for the possibility that there was an error, misdirection, or
outright untruth in the information he was providing.

I realize people are sloppy with the way they say things, but isn't that the
entire point to this whole subthread? People on both sides of the fence use
words in an ambiguous and incorrect way in order to try to give an
impression of something other than the truth. After the fact, they
equivocate, claiming ignorance or splitting hairs or somesuch. In all
cases, they clearly had the underlying intent to deceive to some degree
(whether about a blowjob or a war).

Frankly, my biggest frustration was watching Powell present the so-called
case to the U.N. I will grant that one assumes the "intelligence community"
uses more information than he was able to present in that forum. But I
certainly came away from his presentation thinking "um, so where did they
actually prove there were WMD?" At best, he had presented a case for
circumstantial evidence, and he certainly did not PROVE the case. Yet huge
numbers of people accepted his hand-waving show as proof.

As much as I might be critical of Bush for making what I perceive to be lies
about Iraq, I object MUCH more to the way everyone was so willing to just
follow along, even when the attempts to demonstrate the claims of WMD were
true failed utterly. It was a real-life "Emperor's New Clothes" situation,
and while Bush made full use of the situation, it couldn't have happened
without the complacency of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other people in a
position to question the claims.

The whole thing is disgusting. I can't think of a single federal politician
who can claim taking the side of truth and justice, Democrat *or*
Republican. They all make me angry.

Pete

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:49 GMT, "Nick Danger"
wrote in
::

When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman"

If you had read the referenced article, you'd know that that is not
what Clinton said under oath.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

What do *you* believe was his lie?


Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."



According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.


But according to sound logic it is entirely clear that Clinton actually did
lie.



At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
business but his.


What Clinton did in his private life was never an issue.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."

I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
analysis of the issue:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm
Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person."


However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:

Main Entry:sexual relations
Function:noun plural
Date:1950

: COITUS



Main Entry:coitus
Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from coire
Date:1855

: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
–coital \-t*l\ adjective
–coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb


So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."


I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
analysis of the issue:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm
Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person."


However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:

Main Entry:sexual relations
Function:noun plural
Date:1950

: COITUS



Main Entry:coitus
Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from coire
Date:1855

: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
–coital \-t*l\ adjective
–coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb


So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.


You better run for office as you use logic that only politicians can
appreciate. That is almost as good as saying that Vietnam wasn't a war,
but just a "police action."


Matt

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to
the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the
Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."

I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
analysis of the issue:


I wrote only one complete sentence above. What part of, "Clinton lied
repeatedly under oath.", are you having trouble parsing?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm
Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person."


However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:

Main Entry:sexual relations
Function:noun plural
Date:1950

: COITUS



Main Entry:coitus
Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from coire
Date:1855

: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
-coital \-t*l\ adjective
-coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb


So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.


The term "sexual relations" was very specifically defined for use in the
proceeding. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in
sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . .
contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of
any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing."