From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 03:58:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:58:55 PDT
vincent Brannigan wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:> :Sigh. Clinton was never charged with perjury, much less convicted of
:> No, he just cut a deal and lost his license to practice law.
:Lets make this very clear Exactly what are you implying ?
:1) he committed perjury , but got a plea bargain
:2) He committed an act not amounting to perjury which cost him his
:Im being careful because to me it would d be obvious that you are claiming
:#1 But given your response in he other thread, you can never be sure
As usual with your games of the excluded middle, I'm saying NEITHER of
I'm claiming he committed perjury, as others who lied about the same
sort of 'indiscretions' while in Federal service (I forget who,
exactly, but I recall a judge or two - and they were even impeached
for it). However, Democrats always want to play this one by the
strictest legal definitions, because that means until there is an
actual charge and conviction, you can't say perjury was committed even
if the facts support it.
I am NOT claiming he was charged with perjury and plea bargained out.
Nor am I claiming that he committed an act not amounting to perjury.
I'm claiming he committed an act amounting to perjury, for which he
was never charged. Rather than being charged and going through a
subsequent trial, etc., he agreed to not fight losing his license to
practice law for lying. It was not officially a 'trade'.
So I guess that this, like so many things with Bill, comes down to
what the meaning of 'is' is. The mere fact that such razor-thin
reasoning must be used as his defense pretty much says it all.
What you do
When it counts.