On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
[snippo]
Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer. Fraud is traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't like."
[much drivel snipped]
So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?
What you're talking about is contempt of congress. This is not "fraud." The penality imposed would be purjury. I don't believe that during that discussion, the witness was sworn, but I could be mistaken. In any event, purjury is purjury, but it hardly rises to the level of conspiracy your post originally indicated.
If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as correct. Things are bad indeed.
"I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was right anyhow." Here, have a bozo button. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland