-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 4:36 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush
The argument doesn't hold up for lots of reasons, it's too easy amendable as you said, and it's old and tired. Let it go. jks
--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> Probably not worth going over again. But perjury is
> (or was) an issue
> because many claimed that Clinton ought to have been
> impeached "because he
> perjured himself." Well, if he didn't perjure
> himself, that argument
> doesn't hold up, though you're right that one could
> quickly amend the
> argument to "Clinton ought to have been impeached
> because he lied under
> oath."
>
> -- Luke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "andie nachgeborenen"
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 9:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] MoveOn v. Bush
>
>
> >
> > Why is perjury an issue? Even if Clinton perjured
> > himself, there is no law that perjury is or isn't
> an
> > impeachable offense. Even if he didn't perjure
> > himself, he was an attorney --a former law
> professor!
> > -- who lied to a federal judge, which is stupid
> and
> > makes him subject to discipline. It's not
> necessarily
> > impeachable, but impeachable is what Congress says
> it
> > is.
> >
> > And why are we going over all of this again? This
> is
> > six year old gossip.
> >
> > --- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Dawson wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Say plaintiff J is pressing a civil case against
> > > defendent C on matter SH.
> > > Now suppose that indepedent counsel S (or S's
> > > associates) tell J's lawyers
> > > that they should ask C about matter BJ (which is
> > > totally unrelated to SH)
> > > when he's under oath, hoping that he'll lie
> about
> > > it. I'd call that a
> > > perjury trap, but then again, I'm just a MoveOn
> > > hack.
> > >
> > > > On the suit's merit: You did say it mattered.
> Go
> > > back and read your
> > > > original posting.
> > >
> > > I'll admit that the following is a bit hard to
> > > parse: "You think providing
> > > misleading testimony during a civil trial on
> > > an issue that ought not even have been broached
> > > constitutes an impeachable
> > > offense?" However, "the issue that ought not
> even
> > > have been broached" that
> > > I was referring to wasn't the civil case itself
> > > (though I do think it was
> > > probably bullshit) but rather whether Clinton
> > > engaged in extramarital
> > > liasons.
> > >
> > > -- Luke
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter
> now.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk