My friend, you do not here make an argument. You merely state our differing beliefs by use of symbols. I understand your position perfectly, and am forced by reason to reject it.
>-PJ team makes accusation.
m: ?acc. is bogus--Jones coached beyond facts?
m: ?acc. is bogus--PJ team Not seeking redress, but using Law as political weapon. Discovery, not verdict, their object?
j: fair acc.<
The structure here is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, you allow your judgement to become clouded by the false notion that PJ's TEAM made accusations when in fact under our legal system PJ and only PJ made them. Secondly, m: errs by insinuating of its own volition that the accusations are bogus. Thirdly, your characterizations of j: are false. j: does not determine whether the accusations are bogus or acceptable. j: merely claims that in our society we have mutually agreed to allow the courts to decide such issues.
>-Accusation accepted.
m: ?judge misled to acc. legit?
m: ?judge makes bad call--it was later tossed?
j: deserves full hearing. <
Again, the structure here is flawed. m: insinuates of its own volition the judge was misled and thus made a “bad call”. j: has the better response, given the nature of our legal system. j: merely claims that since we have all agreed to terms of legal engagement, and since these terms include the requirement that we allow courts to settle disputes, when the judge in the PJ matter claimed the accusations acceptable to be heard, all concerned parties were bound to abide by the decision according to the terms of engagement. Those terms expressly disallow lying and obstruction.
>Discovery:
-Non-Lew Test. & Evid discovered.
-Lew Test. discovered
m: Lew. test. of questionable relevance. No relevance till supported.
m: ?test. should have been separated into relevant & not relevant?
m: separation not standard court procedure.
m: ?avenue of abuse of court power versus individual power/right?
m: Exploration and elaboration possible here; this only one extemporaneous example.
j: Court can ask whatever it pleases, however, whenever, whoever.
m: Court encounters variations on old circumstances every moment. Most fit the precedents and laws, some don't. Some courts notice; some don't. Most courts will keep the power to themselves.<
Well. You see, this is problematic for a multitude of reasons. m: is in no position to claim of its own volition what is relevant or not and have its claims justify lies in legal proceedings. m: can question such matters as “separation”, “avenue of abuse” and whatnot, but m: by no means can use such musings of its own volition to determine the worthiness of a case or whether lies are acceptable legal devices. j: is mis-characterized here. j: claims if the court trains its attention toward any matter (having been cleared of all objections then presented by either party), then all parties concerned with the matter are bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God.
>Clinton balks at unsupported questionably relevant testimony.
m: ?He is raising a new, not in the statutes objection to court procedures, based on 5,14, 9, 10 Amends.?
m: ?He is objecting in an unusual, not in the statutes way, in order not to compromise the objection itself.?
m: Questioning the question, with the format of a lie, is not a lie, except in appearance. It is a question, an appeal, without meaning as true or false.
j: ?
m: He has experience in raising unusual legal objections.
j: Pleading the 5th would've been enough.
j: He is lying.
j: < Your man is a liar and a cheat, a man who assaulted your legal system and society.>
When the entire society has agreed with itself to generally engage in a specific way concerning legal matters, one cannot engage outside these parameters and simply claim one is raising a new objection. Clinton was not questioning the question in the format of a lie (whatever this means). By any reasonable judgement he was just plain lying. We as a society have expressly claimed lies are not permitted in our courts. Clinton is indeed a liar and cheat, a man who assaulted your legal system and society. He should have appealed to the 5th Amendment, as none of the other Amendments could help him.
>Starr
m: Starr is let in to determine perjury. He, like you, considers only the appearance, not the substance of the testimony. He should know better, probably does, and has chosen to ignore the [central] issue. Clinton continues "asking for his appeal" with Starr. That lets in the impeachment process. All based on deliberate misunderstandings.
j: Starr determines <<lies and obstruction of justice.>> Congress balked.<
Well. m: here merely claims of its own that Starr and j: are wrong. This is no argument. In fact Starr and j: are in better position, considering our judicial system. Starr has not “determined” perjury (as m: erroneously claims), but rather has gathered evidence of behaviour that when compared with the terms of general legal engagement he believes is disallowed. He presented that evidence to our system. The system charged Clinton on the evidence, and then IT determined nonperjury and nonobstruction. This is fine. Nevertheless j: claims the system failed to try the charges fully and fairly. j: also believes the “jurors” in the case failed to vote in accordance with principle in that many of them claim Clinton did lie but was not guilty of lying. Nevertheless, since j: has agreed to abide by the determinations of the system, j: accepts this determination (though j: believes it manifestly despicable.)
The fact is this: we have agreed to abide by the system. That system disallows clear lies and obstruction of justice (at least it used to). By any reasoned judgement Clinton lied and obstructed. Therefore Clinton operated outside the system. You have argued that the Constitution allows Clinton a right to lie in the event he thinks our courts unfair. Should a very large number of Americans believe as you do, they will cause armed conflict in this country. We must all play by the same rules or else. |
