[lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush

Michael Dawson mdawson at pdx.edu
Mon Sep 6 10:28:03 PDT 2004


There's no such thing as a "perjury trap." What "MoveOn" source coined that lovely term? In the world of law, they're called "questions under oath." If your lawyer can't convince the judge the question is irrelevant to the case, you have to answer.

As to fucked politics, you are the one, sir. You are willing to throw away the rule of law and the Independent Counsel system in order to protect the sorry hide of Bill Clinton, the man who gave us "managed care," "welfare reform," the DLC, and so on.

As to witness credibility mattering, it matters in every case. Go down and watch a trial, any trial.

On the suit's merit: You did say it mattered. Go back and read your original posting. Ah, but you don't care about truth and process. All you want is to get your way. (And your way is Bill Clinton.)

Sad.

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Luke Weiger Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 9:00 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush

Michael:


> As to you and Luke wanting to pretend like the merits of the lawsuit
matter:
> You're simply wrong.

I didn't say the (probably non-existent) merits of the lawsuit mattered. I claimed that the irrelevance of Clinton's testimony mattered, and it does. Point me to a case in which someone got nailed for providing misleading _immaterial_ testimony in a civil trial.

If you really don't think it matters that Starr et al. set a perjury trap (and by "matters" I don't mean exonerates Clinton), your politics are seriously fucked.

-- Luke

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list