1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Re: On good authority...

Re: On good authority...

> You misspeak; the trial re: perjury & obstruction was heard by the

> > Senate, not a judge. > > No, the usual perjury claim against Clinton is about the lawsuit. > That is because it is the place where he did the lie.

One mustn't confuse the scene of the crime with the subsequent, separate, trial & prosecution.

The judge held that there was no perjury in that case.

You've said this several times. What she actually said on dismissing P v. BJ (~1/29/98) was that ML was "not essential to the core issues" of PJ's case. That is, even with this information, PJ hadn't proven her case. That's not the same as "not germane." That information might've been essential to a larger argument, one PJ apparently wasn't able to make, but an element she could've needed.

I think the judge was too intimidated to charge the President of the United States with so grave an offense as perjury, and there was considerable doubt about her standing to do so--the White House certainly thought she could not, that the President enjoyed immunity. [1]

Judges can cite persons for perjury, but they are not the only ones who can do so.

So she deferred and left the perjury matter, unprejudiced by her rulings, to resolution by other legal authorities. Who impeached Mr. Clinton, tried, and acquitted him, as we've recounted.

So, he hoodwinked her, and she'd based her earlier ruling on that. But Judge Weber saw the additional evidence uncovered & felt deceived. So (4/13/99) she cited him for contempt. Read the ruling...she was furious

Cheers, James Arthur

[1] e.g., read White House Special Counsel Larry Davis' remarks here:
formatting link

"[...]I question really the constitutionality of a federal judge trying to impose a sanction on a president of the United States,"

Reply to
James Arthur
Loading thread data ...

Which is what it appears you are doing, if there was a crime at all, which there wasn't.

She also said the words "not germane". This is the basis on which whether there was perjury or not rests.

I very seriously doubt that.

That would be quite another matter. She did not in the end say that she didn't have durisdiction. It is a technical question that doesn't matter to whether or not there was a crime.

So you agree then that he was acquitted of the charge and therefor not guilty? As I said he was not guilty of perjury. Why are you arguing?

Reply to
MooseFET

Of course--that's a matter of public record.

Disagree. He did it; escaping punishment doesn't change that.

He was _found_ "not guilty". That's not the same as not being guilty. O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" as well.

The finding can mean anything from: "there's not enough evidence to convict" to "innocent" to "he's the President, dammit, the head of our party, and we'd hate to shoot ourselves in the foot." ;-)

The former President and O.J. are equally "not guilty," just in different specialties.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

hed Mr.

the

Uh..... So what about "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Are you suggesting you can be "guilty" without due process, or rather, in spite of it?

I think not.

-mpm

Reply to
mpm

ached Mr.

s the

I don't understand your question.

You're confusing "finding" -- a legal thing -- with fact. A finding of "not guilty" does not mean "didn't do it", so yes, of course you can be guilty, yet found "not guilty."

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

ached Mr.

s the

You misquoted.

Reply to
Richard Henry

ng

I understand your point, but I am not confusing anything.

Being "found guilty" does not mean you did, or did not commit the act. It simply means you have been adjudged by others to have committed the act. By this reasoning, and thankfully on rare occasion, some innocent folks are actually sent to prison.

But being guilty likewise does not mean you did, or did not commit the act. It simply means you suffer from a sense of guilt (real or imagined), as in a guilty conscience.

If you committed the act, but are adjudged not guilty, and you feel no guilt as a result of the act, then it hard to reach the conclusion that you're "guilty".

I think the word you're looking for here is "culpable".

Now, back to the O.J. story. Is he guilty? I don't know. I don't know if he feels guilty. I do know he was adjudged not guilty, so by definition he is not guilty. And thus "innocent until proven guilty", since he was not proven guilty, he must be innocent. One cannot be both innocent and guilty simultaneously for the same act. But if I follow your logic, then they certainly can be, and that's clue #1 something's wrong with the terminology.

Now, do I think O.J. is culpable? You betcha.

Then again, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"

Reply to
mpm

ding

I agree with all the above; the problem is "guilty," which is ambiguous by its several meanings:

guilt=C2=B7y adj. 1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable. 2. (Law) Adjudged to have committed a crime. 3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt.

I used it in senses 1 & 2, distinguished by context.

Agreed. Recall though, that the phrase is "*Presumed* innocent until proven guilty", which is a little better.

I nearly bought a pair of those "ugly-ass shoes," his size, at a swap meet. I wonder if they were his murderin' shoes?

Shouldda got 'em.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

Oh, so you still believe he was guilty. Even though those who had the best look at the best evidence said that he wasn't you still believe that he is.

I think you must be getting your "facts" from the obviously biased media.

Reply to
MooseFET

Yes.

I saw that section of his deposition--it was video-taped. And read the transcript. So, I had the same evidence they did.

And more than 45 U.S. Senators and a majority of of the House of Representative saw it my same way. Even more on the obstruction charge. Many more--some simply hesitated to remove him from office over it.

You assume wrongly.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

James Arthur wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

IMO,it wasn't "hesitation".

With the transcript and video evidence,the perjury was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"(note a civil court disbarred BJC for an all-too-short period for the perjury),yet the corrupt DemocRATs still voted to acquit. Pure politics,no justice.

I guess you could call it a case of "jury nullification".[irony] BJC definitely broke the law,yet was let off.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Reply to
Jim Yanik

James Arthur wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

The mainstream media is overwhelmingly DemocRAT,"Progressive"/liberal- socialist,and they LOVED BJC.

Any "media bias" would be in his favor.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Reply to
Jim Yanik

You had some of the same evidence. Many others saw that same evidence and much more and decided he wasn't guilty.

It was just a bit of political theater. Many republicans hated Bill Clinton and would you any method no matter how thin and contrived to go after him.

I am not offically bored with this subject. It is obvious that neither of us will change teh others mind.

Have a nice day :)

Reply to
MooseFET

Actually the jury said that "The prosecution failed to make the case."

An interesting distinction.

Reply to
JosephKK

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.