The 'lying to investigators' charge that is now so often used, is often bogus. (suspected, Clinton)
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.
Elements Of Perjury -- Specific Intent. The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory
Sooooo convenient to try to weasel out of perjury by whining "entrapment" - the law doesn't work like that.
Thanks, Emily Litella, but we're not talking about perjury. We are talking about 18 USC 1001.
Please, its not "begging the question" to discuss that laws against perjury are good. What utter nonsense.
OK I can see that logic is not your strong suit, so I will give up on that, but you're wrong--your post was a picture-perfect example of the 'begging the question' fallacy.
Quote:
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.
I am not looking for respect, especially from sniveling, snide, snippy, snarky posters. Civil discourse would be nice, but I suppose "your" probably incapable of that.
I think that in an era where we have a Republican president and his cronies/flunkies/family lying on a scale we haven't seen since Nixon, it's not the time to be pulling back on criminalizing lying to authorities.
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
One more time, Libby was prosecuted for lying; Clinton wasn't. Do you believe he should have been?
When the judge said that EVEN IF TRUE, there was no criminal case, and dismissed it. So lets focus on the Paula Jones civil matter. Its insanely rare that it ever gets prosecuted at the civil level. There are very few cases of it, and when it is it has been CENTRAL to the case. IE Clinton having sexual relations is not central to the paula jones matter, nor was he asked that in that context. Its a HUGE stretch to link the two cases. And given that its rare for even lies in civil cases where its material to be punished it would be ludicrous to do so.
So thats a pretty insane leap to take, that he should be prosecuted for it given no one else ever would be for answer in a deposition in a entirely separate topic.
So legally? No. It would make no sense at all in the Paula Jones lawsuit-this is by definition the gotcha thing, Clinton wouldn't know it was material to the unrelated case (something not true in the current cases BTW).
But that is not the question you asked. Should he have been prosecuted for perjury before congress is the question really. Keep in mind-I don't think so on the Paula Jones matter as it wasn't material. But I do think he should have been prosecuted after he left office for lying to congress. Now for a question you didn't ask. I think the appropriate jail time for it would be 2 weeks. Lying should always have a consequence, or people like Trump take office. So if prosecuted he should have been prosecuted in that context. That make sense?
LOL. Perjury involves lying. I see that that nuance is lost on you.
So, you don't even know what nuance means, or what I was alluding to, even when I isolate it and quote it directly. Not saying much about your intellect there but honestly, wasn't surprised.
Presumably Starr could have gone after him for perjury, but declined to do so. Clinton lost his law license, but faced no charges. Do you think he should have? If not, why Libby and Stewart, but not Clinton?
Can't indict a sitting President and his impeachment failed to remove him from office. So......
OK I can see that logic is not your strong suit, so I will give up on that, but you're wrong--your post was a picture-perfect example of the 'begging the question' fallacy.
I am not looking for respect, especially from sniveling, snide, snippy, snarky posters. Civil discourse would be nice, but I suppose "your" probably incapable of that.
Yawn. I'm fascinated when posters call you names, and then whine about someone being snarky to them. I think you should look in a mirror more.
Describe an event exactly as it happened 2 to 5 years ago to the FBI agent and if it's not 100% accurate as it happened then you lied and you deserve to go to prison.
Sorry, my memories not that good.
Well that's just too bad.
I've been deposed over matters MUCH less important and you better believe I was expected to remember.
When the judge said that EVEN IF TRUE, there was no criminal case, and dismissed it. So lets focus on the Paula Jones civil matter. Its insanely rare that it ever gets prosecuted at the civil level. There are very few cases of it, and when it is it has been CENTRAL to the case. IE Clinton having sexual relations is not central to the paula jones matter, nor was he asked that in that context. Its a HUGE stretch to link the two cases. And given that its rare for even lies in civil cases where its material to be punished it would be ludicrous to do so.
So thats a pretty insane leap to take, that he should be prosecuted for it given no one else ever would be for answer in a deposition in a entirely separate topic.
So legally? No. It would make no sense at all in the Paula Jones lawsuit-this is by definition the gotcha thing, Clinton wouldn't know it was material to the unrelated case (something not true in the current cases BTW).
But that is not the question you asked. Should he have been prosecuted for perjury before congress is the question really. Keep in mind-I don't think so on the Paula Jones matter as it wasn't material. But I do think he should have been prosecuted after he left office for lying to congress. Now for a question you didn't ask. I think the appropriate jail time for it would be 2 weeks. Lying should always have a consequence, or people like Trump take office. So if prosecuted he should have been prosecuted in that context. That make sense?
No it makes little to no sense. From the very first sentence, it is gibberish:
"When the judge said that EVEN IF TRUE, there was no criminal case, and dismissed it. " What judge said what, and dismissed what?
PUI, I'm guessing. I know from previous posts that you are more intelligent than this.
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.