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.
Conservative here, as much as I don't like the Mueller witch hunt, I do agree with the law against lying to police/investigators. Our Constitution already provides the 5th amendment, it's not a crime to say nothing.
In other words, laws back in the 1400s were bad laws because I say so, and laws against perjury are good today because I say so.
Well I say laws that put people into prison for lying are barbaric, and immoral.
Good for you, you just come on all out supporting peoples ability to lie.
I will stick with my opinion-that's also backed up by laws. If you can get enough people to disagree with me and change the laws, have at it. But you can't. Because the majority of folks teach even young children that lying is bad. And the supreme court discussed this at length-go read the opinions if you want to understand why they didn't agree with you. Allowing people to lie without consequence would destroy our ability to function as a society.
Simple, because its not JUST lying thats required for a charge. It has to be material as well. Clintons lie wasn't material to a investigation or case, as such could not be charged.
IE you can lie all day about who you are doing as long as its not material.
Libby lied about material facts.
Wrong, Clinton's lie was material under the law, because it was a lie about sex in the context of a sexual harassment case (the Paula Jones case). Previously Monica could not have been brought into a harassment case, since Monica was not directly related to the Jones case. That had changed with something called the 'Molinari Amendment,' ironically signed into law by Clinton himself. I think it was a gift to the trial lawyers. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...jurisprurience
So he was technically guilty, as provided by the law (section 1001). Jeanne D'Arc was technically guilty of being a 'relapsed heretic' when she was burned at the stake, as provided by the laws of the time. Are you "perfectly fine" with that too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Oh please. So when you feel you are losing a argument you go into lala land, and have to go to stuff that happened in the 1400's? Laws in the 1400's werent often very good laws. Laws against perjury remain good laws. you should feel shame for even trying this nonsense.
Wrong, Clinton's lie was material under the law, because it was a lie about sex in the context of a sexual harassment case (the Paula Jones case). Previously Monica could not have been brought into a harassment case, since Monica was not directly related to the Jones case. That had changed with something called the 'Molinari Amendment,' ironically signed into law by Clinton himself. I think it was a gift to the trial lawyers. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1...jurisprurience
Nice try, but no cigar. Any other justifications?
Paula Jones case was a civil case. The criminal case was dismissed. As such, not material.
Please, its not "begging the question" to discuss that laws against perjury are good. What utter nonsense.
Quote:
Logical fallacies combined with a snide, snippy, sniveling posting style...not a good combination!
Yawn. Your going to get treated with as much respect as you deserve. Trying to bring up a case from the 1400's to attack me directly is not going to win you any respect. If you want better discourse with me, trying dealing with the topic of the thread, and with facts. For example your post about paula jones case got a fairly straightforward answer from me, and was fairly interesting.
Paula Jones case was a civil case. The criminal case was dismissed. As such, not material.
Another no cigar. Perjury in a civil case is still a crime. Starr could have gone after Clinton, in fact there was plenty of speculation whether Starr would do so. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/17/u...uted-once.html
Quote:
But a review of more than 100 perjury cases in state and Federal courts and statistics on the perjury prosecutions brought around the country show that people are prosecuted for what might be called small lies more regularly than the Clinton defenders have suggested.
Quote:
But interviews with lawyers, legal experts and a woman who is serving a sentence for lying about sex in a civil case show that, far from being shrugged off, the threat of prosecution for perjury, even in civil cases, is a crucial deterrent in the legal system.
One more time, Libby was prosecuted for lying; Clinton wasn't. Do you believe he should have been?
Yes, lying under oath should be prosecuted any time it is proven.
This is not about lying under oath.
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.
