The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:32:19 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 06:32:19 EDT
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> 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
> :> :it.
> :> 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).
There is no middle, that is a statement that "he committed perjury"
now is cut a deal equivalent to plea bargain?
> 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.
nonsense. There was a special prosecutor who declined to bring the charge. So
its not a question of facts but a question of assertions. e.g.. Clinton's
opponents like to claim he committed perjury, but they cant point to any legal
> I am NOT claiming he was charged with perjury and plea bargained out.
No but you say he "committed it" of course that is a statement of personal
opinion not backed by the prosecutorial record.
> 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.
So in your opinion the special prosecutor could bring a charge but chose not
> 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'.
What kind of new speak is this.
you deny that you are saying :
1) he committed perjury , but got a plea bargain
How can anyone distinguish that from
"Rather than being charged and going through a subsequent trial, etc., he
agreed to not fight losing his license to
practice law for lying.
Do you practice Law? Do you realize that only the prosecutor, not the
defendant can make this call? The only thing a defendant can do without a
bargain is to plead to the charge. Clinton did. He pled to the maximum
"charge" the prosecutor made. If he had lied under oat that charge would be
perjury. He didn't it wasn't
> 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.
Let me explain it to you. Im a lawyer. When I appear as an expert witness I
still carry the higher ethical responsibility of a lawyer,. I have an ethical
responsibility not to in any way mislead the court even by an incomplete answer
that is not lying or perjury. If I mislead the court I can be and should be
There is no question clinton was evasive in an attempt to mislead the court.
This was clearly unethical and he was disbarred for it. But the ethical
standard for attorneys is a higher standard than the legal standard for
Admitted to practice law Md 1975, DC 1977
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of