Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Copying and pasting the statute is one thing, understanding it is seemingly another. In brief, there are six tests that must be met in order to uphold a charge of perjury...
1. The witness must have been under oath.
2. The witness must have understood that he was under oath and have been able to appreciate the consequences of it.
3. While under oath, the witness must have made a statement that is demonstrably false. More than the contradictory testimony of a single witness is required in such demonstration.
4. The witness must have understood that the statement was false at the time that he made it.
5. The statement must have been directly material to the issues being tried.
6. The intent of the witness must have been to subvert the jury's ability to establish or understand truth material to the issues being tried.
With respect to Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, you can get past #1 and #2, and then you run into very serious difficulty.
With respect to lying under oath, it happens all the time. People are sworn in and asked to state their age and then provide inaccurate information. Two witnesses will routinely offer contradictory statements concerning the same factual matter. Witnesses regularly offer under oath impressions and recollections as if these were reliable when we know full well that they are not. In each such case, someone is lying under oath. Trial itself is an adversarial process. It's purpose is to discern truth from falsehood, so plainly falsehood will be present. Lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods are regular and integral parts of judicial proceedings. At some level, it is always the case that either the prosecution or the defense is lying from the outset. None of this is a crime, nor is it a problem. Save when all six of the criteria first listed above are met.
And where did the 6 tests come from? How many trials have you testified in? I have been involved in well over 1000 proceedings, many as an expert.
Eye witness testimony is vey unreliable, especially at tramatic events, but their recollections do not mean that they are lying. To confuse the trial process with perjury shows me you do not understand the crime at all. The purpose of a trial is to establish the truth of the matter, lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations are not integral parts of any trial, nor do I know any Judges that will tolerate it. You state perjury is not a crime even though you list criteria to establish it.
Clinton was deceptive under oath, whether you like it or not, and as an officer of the court, he was disbarred in his home state. Your six tests show Clinton was deceptive or is just plain dumb, can't have it both ways.
1) I guess we should trust your gut instinct
2) I would tell you that if I were raped or sexually assaulted by someone I would report it to the police and not the NEWS. I know every situation is different, but surely if he had assaulted ALL of these women - one would have reported it before he became president...
3) I have been sexually harassed by an employer who owned the company. I reported it and was told that he only did it because he liked me - I should be happy about it. Really? Well, I walked away and got another job. I've never been sexually assaulted, but I would also imagine that if all these women who HAVE stepped forward could prove he injured them - he would be in jail.
By the by, none of these women you named seem to have a problem coming forward to discuss the ways in which they were assaulted so the statistic you site doesn't really wash. My point is that it seems a little convenient that they come forward after he becomes President and none can prove that he harmed them.
Actually some of them did report the assaults when they happened and to the other posters who dismissed this as just something that happens to celebrities I would say what about the incidents that happened before he was in the public eye?
How many women claimed they were raped by Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan,Bush or Bush?
This is just one in many times at Politics & other Controversies. that it is so obvious that people are in denial and either can't or won't see any wrong or even the possibility of it in their beloved party or it's icons.
It reminds me of a brainwashed cult that just repeats the same mantra over and over no matter what.
It makes me wonder if I am doing the same thing? No need to give oppions on that.
I am going to do some serious reflecting and I hope I don't see the far left as the mirror.
Does any one remember what the title of this topic is ? Because I am quite sure its not about legal matters. Next time You post, please re read the first post and topic title, just to be sure youre not OFF TOPIC!
Yac.
Yac excellent point, thank you. What you see occuring is the typical maneuvering by the radical right wing who have no answer to the hypocrisy of Vitter, so they attempt to obfuscate matters and toss the completely unrelated topic of Bill Clinton out there as a defense.
Yac excellent point, thank you. What you see occuring is the typical maneuvering by the radical right wing who have no answer to the hypocrisy of Vitter, so they attempt to obfuscate matters and toss the completely unrelated topic of Bill Clinton out there as a defense.
LoL, if you look back the person who brought Clinton into this tread would hardly be considered "radical right wing" my guess is closer to the other end of the spectrum.
I hope it wasn't off topic when I posted the "list of republican sex scandals" or when you posted about McCain and Bob Allen.
Vitter is a hypocrite but unfortunately not the only one in our government. Why would someone other than Vitter himself want to answer for it? I don't think I ever heard of him before this and I have a feeling it won't be long until I will have forgoten his name.
make escorting and drugs legal,there are people from all walks of life on different political platforms that get "caught",no platform has the uphold on morality,though the platforms should concentrate on liberty.With all the talk of "the right to choose" or "it their body" and "personal responsibility" here are two subjects that actually are subject to those thoughts.Morally wrong?..maybe but laws on these subjects have little effect on stopping it.
How many trials have you testified in? I have been involved in well over 1000 proceedings, many as an expert.
Apparently not as an expert on perjury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
Eye witness testimony is vey unreliable, especially at tramatic events, but their recollections do not mean that they are lying.
An affirmative statement that is factually untrue is a lie. It is not, however, perjury, in that the witness may (and often does) testify in the firm, though entirely erroneous, belief that he or she is being truthful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
To confuse the trial process with perjury shows me you do not understand the crime at all.
It is you who commits the confusion. The trial process is rife with the very contradictions over truth that I alluded to in discussing the matter of lying under oath. The whole point of the post was to distinguish perjury from lying under oath, but you seem to have missed at least the greater part of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
The purpose of a trial is to establish the truth of the matter, lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations are not integral parts of any trial, nor do I know any Judges that will tolerate it.
If this were the case, judges would be blessed with calendars full of very short trials. If there were nothing but truth on the table, it would take little time to settle upon it and bring matters to a just close. This is not actually the way it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
You state perjury is not a crime even though you list criteria to establish it.
Read back. See if you can find the statement that perjury is a crime all the time, then justify this comment by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
Clinton was deceptive under oath, whether you like it or not, and as an officer of the court, he was disbarred in his home state.
Absolutely. And disbarment is an administrative disipline applied or not at the discretion of the elders within a professional association. It has nothing at all to do with actual law of any sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashcop
Your six tests show Clinton was deceptive or is just plain dumb, can't have it both ways.
The six tests show that he did not commit perjury. It is not the function of the defendant in a civil (or other) proceeding to assist the prosecution in convicting him. Unfortunately for him, Clinton's rights as a citizen and defendant conflicted with his obligations as an officer of the court. He elected to act on the basis of his rights...the very same rights that you or I in the same situation would exercise. Clinton's testimony was entirely consistent with advice that lawyers provide to civil defendants every day of the week. You are trying to create a second class of citizens and a second set of standards for behavior, and as an expert on the law, you must know that this would be a violation of it in the extreme...
-----
ON EDIT: Posted before reading Yac's reminder. Still, even if not perfectly squared with the original topic, I think it's a worthwhile and logical topic to have progressed into.
Last edited by saganista; 07-15-2007 at 01:57 PM..
make escorting and drugs legal,there are people from all walks of life on different political platforms that get "caught",no platform has the uphold on morality,though the platforms should concentrate on liberty.With all the talk of "the right to choose" or "it their body" and "personal responsibility" here are two subjects that actually are subject to those thoughts.Morally wrong?..maybe but laws on these subjects have little effect on stopping it.
Lionking I agree with your entire post. The difference is that one party claims to be the party of family values and morality, and supposedly has cornered the market on what God envisions for all of us. Vitter is just the most recent example of how this is patently bogus...after Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, etc., etc. There will most assuredly be others that get caught, "repent", and are forgiven... yet again... by the obstinant party faithful.
I'm anxiously awaiting the day that Ann Coulter gets busted for sending anonymous love letters to Rosie O'Donnell...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
