Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> > This is the link to official documents:
> >
> > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html
>
> Unfortunately this one is extremely difficult to evaluate.  As far as I 
> can see, there simply is no evidence beyond one person's word against 
> the other. Even several other women coming forward and saying that 
> similar things happened to them would greatly bolster the case.
>
> Obviously if the allegations are true, then the woman was extremely 
> badly treated.  But it is just totally impossible to make any kind of 
> proper judgment.
>
> O'Reilly's shake-down accusations are, unfortunately, just as plausible 
> as the woman's accusation.  Obviously, they are the only two who know 
> the real truth.  Both of their actions and reactions are consistent with 
> someone who is telling and knows the truth, although obviously only one 
> of them really is telling the truth.  In the absence of further 
> evidence, one simply cannot decide who is in the right here.

Aren't the transcripts of her tape recordings available from that page? 
Ah -- apparently the issue of tapes never really was resolved in public:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/28/acd.01.html

So, Mackris seemed to have tapes because her memory of O'Reilly's 
conversations was so detailed (e.g., including every 'um' and 'uh').  She 
alleged he had called her many times and therefore, if she was telling the 
truth, she had opportunity to record him.  Of course, the case was settled 
quickly so we only have her accusations and the tapes, if there were any, 
were never made public.


> But also, now that I have seen the evidence of sexual harassment, I can 
> now see why you didn't present this as your prime evidence.  It really 
> is of the same quality as the other pieces of evidence.  Although if it 
> could be independently verified, I agree that it would be totally huge.

Now that she has been paid off, it's over.


> > If you are very concerned about this episode, you probably know that 
> > the court presented to Clinton a definition of "sex" and asked him if 
> > he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky according to their definition of 
> > that term. Did you know that?  If so, what was the court's definition 
> > of "sex"?
>
> Now that you mention it, I think I do remember this detail.  But my 
> impression was that there was some negotiation as to what this 
> definition should be.  I think that even the need for the existence of a 
> definition shows that Clinton was seeking to deceive the court over this 
> matter.  The information was clearly pertinent to the case at hand, and 
> any honest person would simply have revealed the information.  (But then 
> again, an honest person probably wouldn't have had the affair in the 
> first place.)
>
> This is clearly an act of someone lying with intent to gain significant 
> advantage.  And whether the advantage was real or perceived is not 
> important, it is the intent that matters.  So if you argue that Clinton 
> would have won the case even if this information had been revealed, this 
> simply is not relevant.
>
> But also, unless my memory is incorrect, I do recall that the judge, or 
> at least someone with the appropriate authority, did eventually rule 
> that Clinton had committed perjury.

That was the Republican Congress, but not the Republican Senate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm

It seems to me that someone who wants to keep his private life private has 
no choice but to lie when asked if he had sex with someone, if he did it. 
If you ask someone if he is gay, and he is but he doesn't want to admit to 
it, he has to lie and say 'no,' because if he declines to answer, you know 
what that means.

But again, this was never of imoprtance.  It doesn't matter if the 
President lies about who he has sex with.  In the larger scheme, that is a 
very small issue in a Presidency.  The President has vast powers and 
important work to do.  Who cares who he has sex with?!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion