I'm not talking about the "broaching" of the lawsuit--I'm claiming that whether or not Clinton engaged in extramarital sex wasn't relevant to the case.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush
> Would I show disrespect for the rule of law if I claimed that a speeding
> ticket isn't an impeachable offense? Actually, jaywalking is probably a
> better analogy, since laws against Clintonian "perjury" (Q for the
resident
> LBO attorneys--do Clinton's misleading statements in the Jones trial
> constitute perjury?) are enforced about as often.
>
> BTW: I wouldn't advocate pressing an absurd civil case against Bush
> primarily to get him to lie about his seemingly likely past cocaine use,
and
> if he did lie, I wouldn't want to see him impeached. My counterfactual
hope
> would mirror my actual hope: that the voters boot him out of office
>
> Oh dear,
> Luke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush
>
>
> > Intentional deception while testifying under oath is perjury. Perjury
is
> a
> > felony, as it should be. Clinton, a sitting president and a lawyer, did
> it.
> > Committing a felony while President of the United States should get you
> > evicted every time. Ah, but then you're MoveOn comrades killed the main
> > institution for policing this. Under their system, Nixon would've been
> > allowed to "MoveOn." What's a little debate notebook theft in an
election
> > that was a landslide anyway? "MoveOn."
> >
> > As to the "broaching" of the lawsuit, that's irrelevant to whether
Clinton
> > committed perjury.
> >
> > Oh dear. You think committing perjury is OK, if you like the perjurer's
> > politics. Oh dear. You don't believe in the rule of law. Oh dear.
You
> > like Bill Clinton. Oh dear. You can't see your own hypocrisy. If Bush
> had
> > committed perjury while in office, you'd be sleeping in front of the
White
> > House with your fellow MoveOn rail-greasers. Oh dear.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Luke Weiger
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:10 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> > > MoveOn.org stinks, stinks, stinks. The gulf between what they
advertise
> > > themselves as doing and what they actually do is wider than any other
> > > political group since the UJA flew down to liberate San Marcos (and at
> > least
> > > the UJA admitted what they went down for). Hell, look at the name --
> this
> > > pathetic travesty of a social movement group is named after the
> principle
> > > they first arose to stand for -- "If you like somebody's politics,
then
> > they
> > > get to commit perjury while in office."
> >
> > Oh dear. You think providing misleading testimony during a civil trial
on
> > an issue that ought not even have been broached constitutes an
impeachable
> > offense? Why? Because Christopher Hitchens and his erstwhile pal Ralph
> > Nader said so?
> >
> > -- Luke
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>