Re: Clinton's fake apologies
Declan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and concealed it take one step forward. Shall we make hypocrisy in high office impeachable also?
A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies, should he be impeached?
IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was dismissed. Of course he's saying he didn't even lie: like Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, as espoused in their legal treatise "Waitret, please waitret, come sit on my face", he believes that "Eatin' ain't cheatin'." YMMV. In any case, despite these legalisms, I'm not convinced that perjury in any case should be considered treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers could have been more specific about what was impeachable, and they chose not to be, leaving it intentionally ambiguous. Despite those arguments, this stuff really isn't about perjury: it's about the Republicans' case of nixon envy... Clinton's peccadillos are a far cry from Watergate (or Teapot Dome or Iran-Contra), but it's the best chance they've had since the Crook was dumped.
If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not.
If he did commit perjury, would that be an impeachable offense? I claim it's up to the House to interpret just what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, since it isn't spelled out in the Constitution. Disclaimer -- I'm not a Democrat, and I'm annoyed with Clinton's behavior on crypto issues. If I appear to be defending him, it's inadvertant -- I just feel he should be attacked on material points rather than whatever sleazy stuff Starr has found under his rocks. Jim
Jimmy: the "sockpuppets" (as Lucien Goldberg calls them) who defend clinton on TV (and are probably paid to) are trying to advance the case that lying in a civil case is rarely prosecuted, which is true, but has nothing to do with the law. apparently clinton & his slimy lawyer teammates would tend to reassure all the women, such as Gennifer Flowers as I recall, that they could lie without consequence in a civil trial. at least those women whom they didn't threaten to "break their pretty legs". a capricious bunch, hmm? also, there may be some legal precedent that unless the lying had to do with the case, it is not relevant to the case (a reasonable situation I wouldn't be surprised if some judge ruled) but there's just no laws, as I understand it, that ever allow lying under any circumstances, particularly in sitations such as court hearings, depositions, etc. in fact it can be argued our whole legal system breaks down if lying is ever sanctioned in any way. that's the problem. weasel clinton will always be looking for a loophole. I'm surprised you gave the slightest credibility to claims that lying is ever sanctioned under the law. there are a lot of paid-lowlife tentacles making the television circuit defending clinton, I suspect. you've fallen prey to one of their arguments. he would have been trashed long ago if it weren't for their thick, odious & treacherous smokescreens, imho. there are a lot more traitors in this country than Clinton, for sure. they all hang out together, but few sheeple will ever know.
At 10:54 AM 9/12/98 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
1. it's tough to argue that clinton's apparent perjury in Jones was immaterial
2. i know of no law saying perjury only a crime if it's "material"
3. perjury is certainly one of the "great offenses" that common law says is impeachable.
4. besides, non-criminal activities can constitute impeachable offenses -- look at second and third articles of impeachment in Nixon's case
-Declan
In addition, the last man impeached and convicted by Congress (circa 1988) Judge Alcy Hastings (sp?) was convicted for perjury in a tax evasion case in which he was acquitted of the original charges. Hastings was later elected to Congress from Florida and last week dissed Clinton by not attending a fundraiser he held there for the Democrat candidate for governor. Hastings said that he has yet to make up his mind on Clinton and wants to review the evidence. DCF
At 10:49 AM -0500 9/12/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
Declan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and concealed it take one step forward. Shall we make hypocrisy in high office impeachable also?
A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies, should he be impeached?
IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was dismissed. Of course he's saying he didn't even lie: like Kinky Friedman
Whether anyone was convicted or not, he still LIED UNDER OATH (Allegedly, allegedly allegedly). It doesn't matter whether the case was dismissed or not.
In any case, despite these legalisms, I'm not convinced that perjury in any case should be considered treason or high crimes and misdemeanors.
He VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
The Founding Fathers could have been more specific about what was impeachable, and they chose not to be, leaving it intentionally ambiguous.
Despite those arguments, this stuff really isn't about perjury: it's about the Republicans' case of nixon envy... Clinton's peccadillos are a far cry from Watergate (or Teapot Dome or Iran-Contra), but it's the best chance they've had since the Crook was dumped.
Yeah, Nixon only worked to conceal the actions of others, attempting to protect himself, and the people who worked for him. He did this concerning a crime he did not know was going to be committed. Clinton on the other hand LIED UNDER OATH about something HE DID, lied to PROTECT HIMSELF, and ONLY HIMSELF. At least Nixon worried about more than his historical legacy, and his wee-willy.
If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not. If he did commit perjury, would that be an impeachable offense? I claim it's up to the House to interpret just what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, since it isn't spelled out in the Constitution.
Disclaimer -- I'm not a Democrat, and I'm annoyed with Clinton's behavior on crypto issues. If I appear to be defending him, it's inadvertant -- I just feel he should be attacked on material points rather than whatever sleazy stuff Starr has found under his rocks.
As it's been said before, if he'll lie UNDER OATH about this, what about other things? -- petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy. petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else. They wouldn't like that. They REALLY Economic speech IS political speech. wouldn't like that.
What chance is there that the Paula Jones case was dismissed BECAUSE Wild Bill lied under oath? Remember OJ? X -----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@minder.net [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@minder.net] On Behalf Of Petro Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:03 AM To: Jim Gillogly; declan@well.com Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies At 10:49 AM -0500 9/12/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was dismissed.
...unless of course that woman is not politically correct. At 8:24 AM -0700 9/14/98, X wrote:
What chance is there that the Paula Jones case was dismissed BECAUSE Wild Bill lied under oath?
Remember OJ?
You mean you think if Clinton had told the truth when he raised his hand and swore to tell the truth it might have made a difference? "Well, huh, like, I used to bring these young thangs in, invite them in to meet the Governor, and then give them a chance to look at General Lee as he stands up to attention. Ya know, this was why I ran for Governor, to get some of that government-approved nookie. And when I moved up to Washtington, whoooo-wheeeeeeee! Let's see, I "interviewed" Kathleen Willey for that intern job, the same day her husband offed himself, so, like, she wouldn't put out. But I told her my fly was alway open for her. And then there was that little intern with the beret...don't quite recollect her name. Mona, I think, and boy did she ever moan..." Think the truth might have made Paula Jones' tale of Clinton dropping trou on her just a little more plausible? Apparently most Americans now believe her, and they didn't before. The last 8 months has established a clear-cut pattern. But, as I said, having Clinton hanging around is good for the process of disgracing our government officials. Think of how many world leaders will burst into laughter, or disgust, when he offers them a cigar? And it will make it awfully tough for the next round of feministas screaming that some CEO must go because he had a fling with his secretary. And maybe Mitsubishi of America will cancel the multimillion dollar settlement reached with a bunch of women who claimed to have been offended by the sexist jokes of Mitsubishi's Japanese managers. If Clinton can get blowjobs from his underlings, and use government money to set up assignations and to run cover for him, where's the fun in zapping Japanese execs for making hooters jokes? Kind of reminds me of the disconnect between one batch of lesbos screaming that a male only college must be opened to all womyn while another batch of bald-headed dykes in Calfornia screams that Mills College must remain a wimmin-only haven for sistas and queers. Some of these baldies chained themselves to the gates...hey, why weren't they just left chained up? The shriveled corpses might have served as a reminder to others. --Tim May (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
1. it's tough to argue that clinton's apparent perjury in Jones was immaterial 2. i know of no law saying perjury only a crime if it's "material" 3. perjury is certainly one of the "great offenses" that common law says is impeachable. 4. besides, non-criminal activities can constitute impeachable offenses -- look at second and third articles of impeachment in Nixon's case -Declan On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
Declan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and concealed it take one step forward. Shall we make hypocrisy in high office impeachable also?
A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies, should he be impeached?
IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was dismissed. Of course he's saying he didn't even lie: like Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, as espoused in their legal treatise "Waitret, please waitret, come sit on my face", he believes that "Eatin' ain't cheatin'." YMMV.
In any case, despite these legalisms, I'm not convinced that perjury in any case should be considered treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. The Founding Fathers could have been more specific about what was impeachable, and they chose not to be, leaving it intentionally ambiguous.
Despite those arguments, this stuff really isn't about perjury: it's about the Republicans' case of nixon envy... Clinton's peccadillos are a far cry from Watergate (or Teapot Dome or Iran-Contra), but it's the best chance they've had since the Crook was dumped.
If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not.
If he did commit perjury, would that be an impeachable offense? I claim it's up to the House to interpret just what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, since it isn't spelled out in the Constitution.
Disclaimer -- I'm not a Democrat, and I'm annoyed with Clinton's behavior on crypto issues. If I appear to be defending him, it's inadvertant -- I just feel he should be attacked on material points rather than whatever sleazy stuff Starr has found under his rocks.
Jim
participants (7)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
jimg＠mentat.com -
Petro -
Tim May -
Vladimir Z. Nuri -
X