Please learn what "perjury" is before you spout off about it again.
Go ahead. Explain it to me. I'm waiting.
By the way, anonymous, I'm curious -- when Bill Clinton, under oath, said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, do you consider that to have been perjury?
But see, he only committed perjury to cover up an earlier perjury. So that's alright, then.By the way, imagine my surprise to learn that mine builders/owners can actually provides locations in which miners endangered by explosions, gas, etc., can remain safe, with air, water, etc., until they can be rescued. What a quaint idea! Seriously, it was great to read, after my heart plunged at seeing the headline of so many Canadian miners in trouble, that they were safe, because someone had thought their safety was part of the big game.
I'm still waiting for "anonymous" to give me a lesson in basic law, but let's dispense with a couple possible objections, shall we?First, Gonzales was most definitely under oath during his confirmation hearings, so it's not like he can weasel out of it that way.Another objection is that "perjury" requires more than simply lying under oath. It requires lying about something material -- that is, something relevant to the case, but it's hard to imagine something more material than what Gonzales lied about.So I have no idea what excuse anonymous is going to hand us, but it should be entertaining when it arrives.
Hello? anonymous? Still waiting. While you're mulling it over, you might want to read this.In any event, don't keep us in suspense too much longer. The anticipation is just killing me.Tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Let's first debate whether Gonzales simply lied, how about that? Then we can argue about whether that lying constituted actual perjury.How's that for a start?
Post a Comment