Actually, they settled the case (paying some $350,000, I believe, to the man who alleged employment discrimination based on Service Corp getting him fired - and then packing the Texas agency that regulates funerals - because the commission was investigating SRV's actions for violation of Texas laws).
They (Texas Governor's office and Service Corp... one of Dubbya's largest campaign contributors throughout his career) settled the case... and paid off the whistle-blower, thus getting the official record sealed from public view, just before it was to have gone to trial.
Hard to prove Dubbya lied under oath at the deposition - since the records are now sealed - but the whistle-blower had had at least two sworn statements from other individuals directly contradicting Governor Bush's sworn testimony that he hadn't intervened in the Agency's regulatory process, and these statements were about to be used in Court, when the case was settled.
Hard to believe the governor's office would have contributed to the settlement and insisted on sealing the record, unless they didn't want to put the Governor's perjured statement before the court.
So, you tell me... when is it 'worse' to lie under oath, when trying to cover-up a sexual liason, or when trying to cover-up a case of improper governance - allowing a major campaign contributor to short circuit government action taken against his own company?
The answer to 'which case of lying is worse' probably betrays more about the answerer than the law (since perjury is perjury to the courts). |
