Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:54:09 -0600
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:54:51 -0600
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED du> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED .edu> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20070225
Mike Miller wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
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.
Unfortunately in our overly-letigous society, settling out of court is
extremely common. It doesn't imply guilt (either legally nor in
reality) either way.
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.
Your are correct. I had misremembered. The judge ruled that he was in
'contempt of court'. Apparently the label 'perjury' doesn't apply in
civil cases. Also, it was in the discovery phase, so probably the
question was negatiated by the lawyers, without the judge being involved.
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.
If you are in a court case, and it is relevant to the situation, then
you have to answer.
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?!
The question under our consideration was "did Clinton tell a big lie" -
not "was this relevant to his ability to be President." Try to stay
logically focused.
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion