On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:09:44 -0600, Ken
<ken@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Lamont Cranston wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>> Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>> "Sorry" isn't the word for somone who launches tirades
>>>> against a political opponent using a sham set of
>>>> "principles" that never seem to apply to your own
>>>> choice of politician
>>>>
>>>> It's called HYPOCRISY
>>>>
>>>>> Of course that was after "she testified
>>>>> in 1996 about her work for Madison, Mrs. Clinton said on 99
>>>>> occasions that she was unable to recall what she might have done."
>>>>> Could that have been an example of perjury???? America wants to
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not an example of "perjury", KENLOON
>>>
>>> Again I am sorry, for I thought telling a lie while under oath was
>>> perjury?
>>
>> That is not the definition of perjury.
Sorry, still does'nt qualify as "perjury", KENLOON
> Listed below is what YourDictionary.com says. If you disagree with my
>definition, just what is YOUR defintion????
Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false
oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial
proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath";
that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom
proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the
truth.
It is im****tant that the false statement be material
to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of
the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to
lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in
proving the case.
Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very
serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while
prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of
actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.
Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are
particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to
prove that someone is intentionally misstating a
material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly
from faulty memory.
> 1. the willful telling of a lie while under lawful oath or
>affirmation to tell the truth in a matter material to the point of
inquiry
> 2. the breaking of any oath or formal promise
Now then, KENLOON
1) The "lie" in a CIVIL case of Jones v Clinton was
NOT (repeat not) "material to her case".
2) the Denial of "***ual relations": a) bore no bearing
on Jones's Case, b) was in response to a NON-LEGAL
definition concocted by Jones Attorneys and Clinton
made the denial believing he was correct.
3) The "Denial" was pointedly in reference to a
NON-LEGAL definition of "***ual relations" (offered by
Jones attorneys)---Judge Wright explaining that Clinton
"Had a right" to make that denial
4) Was a "RIGHT" accorded Clinton (to deny) after Jones
was warned that he (clinton) had a LEGAL RIGHT to
challenge a NEW definition of "***ual relations" in a
court of law.
OTOH, Reagan KNEW that North, etal, was selling arms to
Iran, Knew that the operation was underway, Aided and
abetted the subversion of constitutional government by
withholding (lying in congressional testimony by his
staff) and later ADMITTED knowing it was happening. He
"Forgot" he knew all those things---until they were
caught---at which time he went on TV and acknowledege
HE DID KNOW.
>====================================================================
>
>In the case of the two 1985 Israeli arms transfers, President Reagan
>knew from the outset that he was acting in conflict with his own
>announced policies of not rewarding hostage takers and of not selling
>arms to nations sponsoring terrorism. He knew this activity was
>politically and legally questionable.52 Two of his principal advisers,
>Secretary of Defense Casper W. Weinberger and Secretary of State
>Shultz, both opposed the initiative for those and other reasons.
>Nonetheless, the President decided to proceed, and he directed
>that Congress not be notified.53
>
> Reagan, Poindexter Trial Testimony,
|
