Iriemon said:
Do I deny he broke the law or do I deny it is a big deal? As to the former, he was not convicted,
ROFL what a dodge. The fact is he was "convicted" when he was held in contempt of court. He later plea bargined. The question however was did he break the law NOT whether he was "convicted". If you don't believe he broke the law then explain the premise of that conclusion.
and I did not study the evidence enough as to Lewinsky's affidavit to form a conclusion.
Conclusion as to what? It is irrefuteable that he affidavit was false, was perjurious. Clinton knew that when he submitted it. By doing so he set her up for a term in a federal prison. And you say he's a nice guy.
His statement "they did not have "sexual relations" as he understood that term to be used by the Jones lawyers" may have been non-responsive, but is not false if he did understand the term "sexual relations" to mean sexual intercourse.
I have totally debunked that positionm, including citing Judge Wrights ruling, You have offered NOTHING in rebuttle. It is a phoney claim. In order for him to believe that he would have to believe that while she had a sexual realtion with him he did not have one with her. That is patently absurd. You are not allowed to created your own definitions in a courtroom. Besides he testified they were never alone and Judge Wright specifically sited that as a false statement under oath, you can't get around that one even with tortured definitions.
You may have a different opinion, but he was testifying based on his understanding.
He was testifying in an attempt to lie under oath.
As far as it being a big deal, I'm not sure why the president's affair was anybody's business but his, his families, and hers.
I've already explained that to you in detail, why do you pretend otherwise.
I'm not sure why he was asked questions about Lewinsky in the grand jury, wasn't that a matter involving Paula Jones?
You really are ignorant of the matter aren't you yet you make claims about my statements as if you do know about it. The Grand Jury was about his perjury and obstruction of justice by lying about his affair with a subordinate employee and submitting a false affidavit.
Whatever. The guy had an affair, and like every other person in the world who had an affair, he tried to hide it from his wife (can you blame him?).
Well if you or I are facing a federal civil rights lawsuit we don't have that luxury do we. The law REQUIRES you to give such testimony, a law which Clinton signed addiontional statutes to to require you or me to have to give truthful testimony to, and he choose to break that law.
IMO it is not at the top of the list of things I think are more important.Intellegence, knowledge of facts, economics and history, statemanship skills, political skills, speaking skills, dipolmatic skills and ability to run things competently are more important attributes to me.
How about upholding your oath of office and obeying the law like you and I are required to.
Lying is bad, but how bad it is depends upon what you are lying about. Fibbing about an affair is not up there in the worst lies book for me. It would certainly be much worse IMO, for example, to lie about the reasons for taking the country to war.
Well if you ever lie about an affair before a judge you just try and make that arguement as the judge sentences you to prison. But what you are actually saying is that women who are sexually harassed in the workplace do not have a right to a fair trial, that the employers who harass them have the right to lie under oath to get out of it. And if we start allowing people to lie in court because they might be embarrassed then we may as well shut down the courts.
That's the ground you have choosen to defend.
