In a message dated 98-09-12 20:24:13 EDT, you write:
<< Partial touche...
But you still make my point for me: whether or not the President
exposes his dick to subordinates and asks them to kiss it is a
materially important fact in the case in question. Whether he has
consensual extramarital sex, oral or otherwise, is not.
Agreed. But the judge allowed the question. Of all people, Clinton should
know (having imposed his Executive willfullness upon us) that he is subject
to the judge's rulings or he is sanctioned.
> No one, not any citizen, gets to lie under oath.
I believe that any citizen who is compelled to testify under oath on
matters which, by their nature, are private matters of a legal nature
and protected under other circumstances by other laws... has every
right to not answer, or lie, or sing Yankee Doodle Dandy if that's what
they want to do. But that's a personal opinion, and not (even my own)
legal opinion. I believe the judge overstepped his bounds, and I
believe that Clinton's attorneys screwed up when they didn't immediately
start objecting to that line of questioning and not stop objecting until
every last one of them was thrown out of court.
I don't disagree with you. Do you think I believe we are held at gunpoint to
provide truthful and accurate testimony? Sure you can do whatever you want,
and *take the consequences.* As for Clinton's atty's, they screwed up if and
when they didn't urge him to tell the truth.
My logic *is* rather ipso facto. But Clinton and his attorneys knew the
facts ahead of time. It's their bumble for not taking care of
business. But of course Bill probably didn't come clean with the
attorneys ahead of time, either... sex addicts typically lie to conceal
Speaking from personal experience? :)
> I still think you are hung up on sex.
I have no idea how you got to that conclusion.
Corroborative testimony. Kidding!
I'm hung up on privacy
in general. Whether the entity forcing disclosure is the government, my
insurance company, your insurance company, or my favorite search engine,
and whether the matter in question is my sex life, my financial
background, my spending habits, my surfing patterns, or whatever... as
long as it doesn't impact someone else, or that impact is consensual,
then it's my / our business and I shouldn't be compelled to disclose it.
I agree, but we know that Clinton's sexual habits had bearing in the Paula
Jones case. I don't know what you mean by "impact is consensual." In sexual
harassment suits - again, look at the law Clinton signed into activity - even
consensual sex with a subordinate is viewed as creating an atmosphere of
harassment, particularly for those choosing NOT to engage. If you read the
Starr referral, you see the Presidential energy expended securing positions
for Ms. Lewinsky. JOB positions, she clarified. Oh, nevermind.
As for the *sex* aspect, I think many people (the ones that are hung up
on the perjury issue) are taking an ideal extreme and forgetting how
trivial the incident that precipitated the lie actually was. Adulterers
lie about their affairs, bottom line. The fact that it happened in a
court room, under oath... well, hell.
I pray I never have to depend on your testimony.
That doesn't change anything for
me. I bet 9 out of 10 guys would do the same thing in the same
situation if they thought they'd get away with it.
Note to self: Add "sexist" to list.
As for you being held in contempt... well, *way to go!* I'm very
serious about that. I think most judges run their courts like medieval
fiefdoms, and have way too much latitude. I've been to court myself,
and though I wasn't held in contempt, I doubt that judge would count me
as the most cooperative person he's ever had the stand.
Mutual admiration here. Cost me a lot, however. I don't recommend it.
There's another interesting angle, here: that "oath" doesn't mean a
damn thing to a lot of folks ("so help me God") and many even find it
offensive... why should those words compel me to reveal things I don't
Back to the top.