Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:23:08 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:23:08 GMT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
> "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
>> :#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 those.
>> 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 support.
>> 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 to.
>> 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 disbarred.
> 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 perjury. .
> Vincent Brannigan
> Admitted to practice law Md 1975, DC 1977
Because some prosecutor does not bring formal charges hardly means that
someone did not commit a crime.
Looking in the legal dictionary it says
"PERJURY Criminal offense of making false statements under oath or
18 USC 1621
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer,
or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony,
declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is
true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title
28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material
matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
statement or subscription is made within or without the United
And here in Georgia
(a) A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been
administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial
proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement
material to the issue or point in question.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of perjury shall be punished
by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less
than one nor more than ten years, or both. A person convicted of the
offense of perjury that was a cause of another's being imprisoned
shall be sentenced to a term not to exceed the sentence provided for
the crime for which the other person was convicted. A person
convicted of the offense of perjury that was a cause of another's
being punished by death shall be punished by life imprisonment.
The fact that he was not criminally charged and was instead given "other
choices" does not change the fact that he committed a crime.
After taking an oath, he gave a statement, A SWORN statement, about a
material fact in a lawsuit. A statement he later admitted was not true.
First he said he didn't have sexual relations then he did.
Call it what you want he lied under oath.
I have handled 100's of criminal cases where the charges were not brought,
or went away with NO PLEA OF GUILT or ANY ADMISSION, in exchange for actions
or agreements on my clients part. That doesn't change the fact that they
committed a crime. The prosecutor decided that was the best way to handle
Oh I am sure that there are those in the current administration guilty of
some wrong doing. But like I tell my clients, it doesn't matter what
anybody else does, the issue is still whether you did something or not. And
the answer is Bill Clinton committed perjury, he lied under oath. Its not
even about what he did, its about lying about it under oath. With the
ratings he had and his MTV voters wanting to know boxer or briefs, if he had
just said, I was weak, I am sorry, I had sexual relations with that woman
and I was wrong, it would have run on the news about a week and a half and
it would have been over.