![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike" wrote in message news:bobvk.344$393.268@trnddc05... Are you trying to claim Clinton wasn't adequately prosecuted? A 7 year investigation that cost $100 million wasn't good enough for you? You go groupie, I bet you even believe the Warren Report. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 2, 6:41*am, "Mike" wrote:
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. Yep. I'm your pretty basic person. Lie, and you are a liar. Lie under oath, and it's perjury. Lawyers get paid to twist pretty simple stuff into something complicated, utterly perverting the truth. 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. Sometimes the law about who lies the most. Sometimes it's not about the truth. We have lots of examples of that. 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? An investigation that lasted a long time because there were so many twists and turns, and new episodes, and more bimbo eruptions, and of course nothing like the truth coming from either of the Clintons. Bill dragged it out as much as he could. He only fessed when caught by the blue dress. Lots of his friends got guilty verdicts; my opinion is that the big fish mostly got away. In this case, the "LAWYER" that supplied the definition (that was accepted by the court) worked for Paula Jones. * The only clip I saw was Clinton saying that it depends on your definition of "is". Maybe if he'd said something like "I KNOW the definition of is, and...." 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.. He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he'd told the truth. Ever. If he'd kept his pants on in the Oval Office and other places, he wouldn't have to defend himself either. *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). * An honest man, or honest lawyer, wouldn't give up a law license without a fight. Clinton was going to lose that one, because he lied. If that doesn't tell you how weak their case was, you are blind to everything except your own ideology. My primary ideology is to dislike liars. Either party, or no party. 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. Adn got away with it. Which shows what a big team of defense lawyers, who want to cover up the truth, can accomplish. Clinton's lawyers were even better. The question was whether Clinton committed the crime of perjury or not. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obama/Marx | Orval Fairbairn[_2_] | Piloting | 115 | June 30th 08 06:08 PM |
LOVE POEMS, POETRY & QUOTES | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | May 7th 07 01:11 PM |
Quotes please... | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 38 | May 24th 06 02:51 AM |
Favourite quotes about flying | David Starer | Soaring | 26 | May 16th 06 05:58 AM |