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

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 
> 
>

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