Perjury regarding sex -- it really IS a crime!

[M14 Shooter]

The reality is....Clinton did not get convicted of the crime of perjury, I agree, that is a fact, that is what actually happened....but that in itself does not mean he is innocent of the crime of perjury....
maybe this is too abstract an idea for you narrow mind....

If Bush is a liar, then so too is Clinton.
Clinton, however, lied while under oath.

 

[Alpha1]

show me a criminal statute from anywhere in the United States that defines the "crime" of "lying".

Hope this helps.............................

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

 

[maineman]

The reality is....Clinton did not get convicted of the crime of perjury, I agree, that is a fact, that is what actually happened....but that in itself does not mean he is innocent of the crime of perjury....
maybe this is too abstract an idea for you narrow mind....

Being found 'not guilty' in a trial does not in any way, shape or form mean that person is innocent, or did not commit the deed.....the decision of a jury is irrelevant to the facts.....

If a man walks into a bank and demands money from a teller at gunpoint and walks out of that bank with $10,000 of the banks money, he is guilty of robbing that bank...

If he gets arrested 1 second after he leaves the banks, is put on trial, and the jury finds him not guilty, the facts have not changed.....
He is still guilty of bank robbery.

OK..I'm done....

Innocence is a presumption prior to any legal proceeding. It is never the determination of any jury. Juries don't find individuals innocent. They find them NOT GUILTY. No one even said Bill Clinton was "innocent" of anything. I have only stated that he was NOT guilty of the crime of perjury.

And if your bank robber is found not guilty by a jury....he may not, in fact, be innocent, but he definitely IS not guilty.

It is the same with pitches in a baseball game. There are good pitches and there are bad pitches.... and they have been many good pitches that were called BALL, and there were many bad pitches that were called STRIKES. Teh "quality" of a pitch is judged by the umpire and is called either a ball or a strike based upon his judgment. The "quality" of a ball or a strike does not matter once the call has been made. Your bank robber, as I said, may not be innocent, but he IS not guilty. that's a fact.

 

[maineman]

Hope this helps.............................

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

lying is not a crime unless it is material and influences the federal decision making body to which it is addressed.

similarly, lying under oath is a crime only if IT is material to the case in question.

 

[maineman]

If Bush is a liar, then so too is Clinton.
Clinton, however, lied while under oath.

Clinton is definitely a liar...and so is Bush... and Clinton's lie got no one killed, and Bush's lies have gotten 4000 Americans, and tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis killed.

In the child's vernacular, Clinton's lie was a "little white lie" whereas Bush's lies and misleading were "big, red, bloody lies."

 

[Alpha1]

Innocence is a presumption prior to any legal proceeding. It is never the determination of any jury. Juries don't find individuals innocent. They find them NOT GUILTY. No one even said Bill Clinton was "innocent" of anything. I have only stated that he was NOT guilty of the crime of perjury.
___________________________________________________________
And if your bank robber is found not guilty by a jury....he may not, in fact, be innocent, but he definitely IS not guilty.

Well well....it seems we're making progress

The jury finding is irrelevant ...the only issue relevant is if, in fact the person committed the deed, not what a jury deceided....

So in reality....OJ may be guilty of committing a double murder, and is thus a murderer, regardless of what the jury concluded.....

So, by the same logic, ...though the a jury may find Clinton 'not guilty' of perjury has no bearing on if he is indeed innocent of the crime....

You may ignore his 'confession' and argue his innocence on other grounds if you wish....but not with me...I've made my point....





It is the same with pitches in a baseball game. There are good pitches and there are bad pitches.... and they have been many good pitches that were called BALL, and there were many bad pitches that were called STRIKES. Teh "quality" of a pitch is judged by the umpire and is called either a ball or a strike based upon his judgment. The "quality" of a ball or a strike does not matter once the call has been made. Your bank robber, as I said, may not be innocent, but he IS not guilty. that's a fact.

Balls and strikes...? These are judgment calls for the most part.....bank robbery is not a judgment call at all....it is a fact or not a fact....

 

[maineman]

Balls and strikes...? These are judgment calls for the most part.....bank robbery is not a judgment call at all....it is a fact or not a fact....

you misread my statement.

And if your bank robber is found not guilty by a jury....he may not, in fact, be innocent, but he definitely IS not guilty.

If he is found NOT GUILTY...then he IS NOT GUILTY. PERIOD.

 

[Alpha1]

you misread my statement.

And if your bank robber is found not guilty by a jury....he may not, in fact, be innocent, but he definitely IS not guilty.

If he is found NOT GUILTY...then he IS NOT GUILTY. PERIOD.

And around and around we go....like talking to a child...

IF the bank robber, did indeed rob the fuckin' bank, HE IS GUILTY OF ROBBING THE BANK....regardless of what a jury thinks.....
IF you commit the act, who gives a shit what a jury says....if you suck a cock, you're a cock sucker and nothing a jury says can change that fact.....

 

[maineman]

And around and around we go....like talking to a child...

IF the bank robber, did indeed rob the fuckin' bank, HE IS GUILTY OF ROBBING THE BANK....regardless of what a jury thinks.....
IF you commit the act, who gives a shit what a jury says....if you suck a cock, you're a cock sucker and nothing a jury says can change that fact.....

if a jury finds you not guilty, you are, by definition, not guilty.

that's what the words mean. I am sorry that is too tough for you to grasp.

Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury. same thing. it's a fact. deal with it.

 

[jillian]

Ah - misdirection and obfuscation.
Typical.

Really? Funny.... you have no problem with lies and obstruction about things that matter because a repub does them... but you concern yourselves with BS like lying about an affair b/c a dem does it.

So sad, really.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lying under oath is a crime..it's perjury. The REASON it's a crime is that people have no way of knowing whether or not the INFORMATION THEY ARE WITHHOLDING ILLEGALLY is pertinent to the case until all the cards are on the table.

You get asked a question, the judge says you need to answer it, and you tell a deliberate lie..you've committed perjury. Even if not convicted, Clinton admitted to lying under oath.

I get so sick of people making up excuses and reasons why lying is okay.

 

[Dr Grump]

Really? Funny.... you have no problem with lies and obstruction about things that matter because a repub does them... but you concern yourselves with BS like lying about an affair b/c a dem does it.

So sad, really.

M14 is more worried about getting the "win" than debating. Typical arrogant right-winger. He calls others on making statements of "fact" without backing them up, when he does it almost every post himself. Then again, have you ever met a neocon who isn't a hypocrite? I haven't..

 

[Dr Grump]

Lying under oath is a crime..it's perjury. The REASON it's a crime is that people have no way of knowing whether or not the INFORMATION THEY ARE WITHHOLDING ILLEGALLY is pertinent to the case until all the cards are on the table.

You get asked a question, the judge says you need to answer it, and you tell a deliberate lie..you've committed perjury. Even if not convicted, Clinton admitted to lying under oath.

I get so sick of people making up excuses and reasons why lying is okay.

I have absolutely no problem with him lying about getting a blow job. It affected my world not one iota. Bush lying about WMDs, now I find that bothersome. Wonder how many people have been affected by that decision...

 

[AllieBaba]

There it is again. Taunting somebody because they are after facts, and ridiculing them when you are unable to come up with any.

Libs don't know what truth is, and have no honor.

 

[Dr Grump]

There it is again. Taunting somebody because they are after facts, and ridiculing them when you are unable to come up with any.

Libs don't know what truth is, and have no honor.

How am I taunting you? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

And if Bush and his ilk are men/women of honour, I'm glad I have none. You are judged by the company you keep, and if they are honourable as defined in the dictionary I'm Mother Theresa.

 

[AllieBaba]

M14 is more worried about getting the "win" than debating. Typical arrogant right-winger. He calls others on making statements of "fact" without backing them up, when he does it almost every post himself. Then again, have you ever met a neocon who isn't a hypocrite? I haven't..

I'm referring to the above comment.

Typical lefty rhetoric, and absolute evidence of the way you guys despise truth, and those who have different opinions.

I think it's funny that you actually attack somebody on the basis that they ask for facts in a debate.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm referring to the above comment.

Typical lefty rhetoric, and absolute evidence of the way you guys despise truth, and those who have different opinions.

I think it's funny that you actually attack somebody on the basis that they ask for facts in a debate.

No, I attack a person if they demand a standard from somebody that they do not adhere to themself.

As for rhetoric, every post you have ever made reeks of it. I don't think you have posted a fact in your life. All you do is make shit up and try and justify it. To me messageboards are a forum to exchange different POV on different subjects. Most righties on boards always seem in a shitty mood and go around posting like bears with sore heads. You epitomise this....so much anger, so little time...

 

[jillian]

M14 is more worried about getting the "win" than debating. Typical arrogant right-winger. He calls others on making statements of "fact" without backing them up, when he does it almost every post himself. Then again, have you ever met a neocon who isn't a hypocrite? I haven't..

Of course... and you're right that it's typical right wing hypocrisy....

no sense of proportionality either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, I attack a person if they demand a standard from somebody that they do not adhere to themself.

As for rhetoric, every post you have ever made reeks of it. I don't think you have posted a fact in your life. All you do is make shit up and try and justify it. To me messageboards are a forum to exchange different POV on different subjects. Most righties on boards always seem in a shitty mood and go around posting like bears with sore heads. You epitomise this....so much anger, so little time...

Oh really? Then explain why your not hot to see Obama treated like any white person would be treated?

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh really? Then explain why your not hot to see Obama treated like any white person would be treated?

How is he being treated in your eyes? How should he be treated?