Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article YNfsk.641$w51.45@trnddc01, "Mike"
wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article LSesk.685$lf2.108@trnddc07, "Mike"
wrote:

There was no perjury.

He lied under oath. That, by definition, is perjury.

No it's not.

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries. The false testimony has to
be material to the case. A person can lie under oath all day long on
questions immaterial to the case and never be convicted of perjury, yet this
fits both definitions you provided. Again, it's obvious you have no clue
about the subject you attempt to argue.



However your definition does demonstrate why you don't posses the
knowledge
to argue such points.

Isn't my defintion.

It's the incorrect one you provided. That makes it yours. Either you
didn't know it was incorrect, or you knew it was incorrect and provided it
anyway for reasons one can only guess. Take your pick.



Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter.

which does not mean he didn't lie.

It means he's innocent of perjury.

Presumed innocent by the legal system.

Exactly. And anything contrary is a poorly based opinion. The Independent
Counsel investigation spent $100 million and the better part of a decade
trying to convict Clinton of anything and came back with nothing. Mr.
Honeck's suggestion that Clinton got off because of his position is
ridiculous to the point of hysteretics. In fact he was federally
investigated more than any human being in the history of the United States.
So you might want to start asking yourself how someone who was subject to so
much scrutiny able to escape without so much as indictment for a charge
you're so certain he committed.



If you're
not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate
yourself before you comment.

indeed.

Glad you agree.

If only others would educate themselves...

You still haven't gotten so much as the definition of perjury correct after
two tries. You might want to look at yourself first, but that's just a
suggestion.

In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike" wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which a

(1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a
judicial proceeding;
(2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and
(3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive.

That's the definition given by the USSC, which is the one that counts. Ken
Starr never came close to meeting that burden which is why he never so much
as attempted to indict Clinton for the crime of perjury. Giving misleading
but factually correct answers is not a crime. Providing answers you believe
are correct is not a crime.

So no matter how much you wish Clinton would have been convicted, he wasn't
even so much as indicted and for very good reason. Those are the facts.
Accept them and get over it.

In article p_psk.621$482.231@trnddc06, "Mike" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which a

And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a
lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury. American-English
defines perjury as telling a lie under oath. Clinton did lie under oath.
That is a fact. Move on.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article p_psk.621$482.231@trnddc06, "Mike"
wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Telsk.632$Ro1.589@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

'The offense of willfulling telling an untruth in a court after
having taken an oath or affirmation."

You still don't have it right after two tries.

Take your complant to the people who wrote the dictionary.

You can search numerous dictionaries and most of them don't have all the
required elements required to support a federal case for perjury which
a

And that is why we are apparently talking past each other. I am not a
lawyer and I am not concerned with what the law calls perjury.

Obviously, and that's my point. Thank you for agreeing.

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".

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.

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.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...

Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.

Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.

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.

Politics dumb ass. It's be like asking you to roll over on Bertie.



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.

No dumb ass, the opinion that ultimately counts is the voters.

"Zebulon" @###@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:M_Tuk.210$jE1.197@trnddc03...

Nice meaningless diatribe you have going on there.

Trying to relate on your level Mikey Mouth.

It wasn't your response to begin with, 12 yr old. Jeez you are one dumb
$hit.

Try all you want, but you can't relate on any level in this particular NG.

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.