>>> That article came from the Los Angeles Times!!!. And just when we thought you could read, too.
I stand corrected. I admit the post was so long and boring I didn't get to the bottom, where 'the Times' identity would have been revealed as the LA paper by noting the organization portion of the URL you provided. I forgot there was more than one right-wing Times in this country. Mea Culpa.
However, I think you contradict yourself. You had just decided I had no mind at all, so I think it would be unfair to expect me to read.
I notice you decided not to reply to my comment that 115 cases, by your own claim, out of a few million witnesses, (and a hundred million taxpayers) would not seem to be a lot of sentences for perjury relative to the frequency of the offense. (Or by the standard of the percent of politicians or philanderers who may lie a bit.) And that the president would be one of those so honored seems a bit odd unless this is what it seems, a show trial. I will take this as tacit acceptance of my point.
>>> committed serial perjuries before a criminal grand jury.
I expect you mean supposed perjuries before the Starr grand jury, in the video tape? I thought your current theory was that this tape showed he had perjured himself in some previous event. What are you talking about, exactly? What statements to the grand jury?
BTW, I am looking forward to the first case of committing simultaneous perjury. I expect the being who achieves that to have interesting anatomy.
>>>civil sexual harassment case filed under a Federal Civil Rights
I thought that the Paula Jones case was filed under Arkansas state law, in a civil court. That federal criminal proceedings were filed under the Civil Rights laws, would be news to me. Can you back this assertion up?
>>> Your pitiful exceptions show that you have no legal mind, no mind at all.
OK, Caped Crusader. Rock on. And have another toke. Say hi to Batman for me. I love both of you guys.
Ciao,
Chaz |
