<<You made the statement that "lying is perjury" Now you are going to great lengths to weasel your way out of that ignorant
statement by claiming I misunderstood. And somehow I am ignorant for showing you to be a liar. >>
Del, I never made that "ignorant statement" you falsely claim I made here. You have just LIED about what I've said TWO posts in a row! You ARE a liar, if an unwitting one(more later). I did not say "lying is perjury." PERIOD. You can't equate the statement "lying is perjury" to "Perjury is lying". GOT IT? You really SEEM to understand, at times- apparently that's just my very assuming perceptions at work.
I also did not call you ignorant. But it's a preferable notion than the notion that you are a knave. I doubt that you are a knave, but I'm undecided on the matter.
The following two statements are true. PERJURY IS LYING. LYING ISN"T ALWAYS PERJURY. They do not contradict each other in any way what-so-ever! Got that? I've been consistent in this, and your consistent claims that I've said something other than this are untrue!
One thing you almost have right is that the law says perjury "must not only prove intent to lie but what he was actually thinking at
the time of the lie."...and..."any logical thinking American can reasonably have
doubt as to whether he was trying to influence the Paula Jones Case or just trying to cover up an illicit affair."
Unfortunately for Clinton his intent doesn't save him from legal perjury if he is also AWARE that his lie affects the case at hand- or merely even MAY affect it. If he is aware the truth may affect the case, he MUST tell the truth or be guilty of perjury. Ask a Lawyer!
If YOU can reasonably believe that he, a lawyer himself, believed the truths he withheld couldn't possibly have an effect on the Jones case, you are as gullible as they come. I don't believe logically thinking Americans can believe he didn't understand the effect his lies could have on the Jones case. I believe Hyde's 85% number would grow if this issue were totally clear to the polled... leaving you in a TINY minority.
I will tell you I have had an article published in support of a Clinton initiative. I ENJOYED hearing him make the the case for an issue I believed in and I quoted him in defense of my position. I purposefully TRIED to make HIM look good in doing so.
<<Your
out to get Clinton and Smear Democrats at any cost..... The country be damned>>
Not only is that charge more personally offensive to me than your "f*** you", it is also simply ludicrous. Your logic is clearly tainted by hatred, your words show it plainly, and of that you seem unaware- as you charge the "other side" with the hatred you yourself are guilty of.
regards,
Dan B. |
