Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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.
Dear Click,
I hope for your sake that the free medical care that the Democrats want
p*****, because you are apparently suffering from Attention Deficit
Disorder. I was talking about Hillary when I said:
"I am sorry, I had forgotten that she experienced shell shock in
Bosnia and is still suffering from it. 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."
Why you feel it necessary to change the subject, leave out a question
that was in reply to one of your points, or redefine the history books,
is anyone's guess. Mine is you cannot handle the "Here and now" and
want to go back to the time when people thought you knew what you were
talking about. Since you are a Hillary fan, it makes the puzzle easier
to understand for those of us the do not lie.
Lastly you seem to enjoy the episode where "Slick" took out his *****
and asked a resident of Arkansas to kiss it. In your neighborhood or
state that might be acting cool, but unfortunately not everyone,
everywhere thinks it is cool. Here they think it is perverted even if
you try to lie your way out of it by redefining the definition of a word.
>
>> ====================================================================
>>
>> 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,
|
