"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote:

It may surprise some to know that I don't think Clinton was treated
unfairly
after he lied in his deposition. I believe that Clinton did break the law
when he lied while under oath during the course of the Paula Jones law
suit.
Now, was the lawsuit on the up and up. Hell no. It was part of a right
wing
political vendetta designed to ruin Clinton. Unfortunately, he fell into
their trap and broke the law, which he paid a heavy price for. All he had
to
do was tell the truth and admit what he did and he would have gotten off
completely free except for paying a price to his wife. As far as crimes
go
Clinton's was truly small potatos and nothing to do with government power
or
abuse.

I hope you see the similarities. Clinton and Liddy both got caught in a
perjury trap.

Wes


I don't know what a perjury trap is. Maybe you can explain it to me. Is it
like a bank robbery trap? When one gets on the witness stand and takes an
oath to tell the truth and doesn't it may well be perjury, but maybe not,
because for it to be perjury it has to be a lie that is told knowingly and
it has to be material to the matter being adjudicated. Clinton didn't tell
the truth but it was not perjury. Libby was convicted of perjury, big
difference. It's like being charged with it compared to being convicted of
it. If Clinton had committed crimes as serious as Libby did I'd gladly admit
it. You can't say the same about Libby. The problem is you are unable to see
the difference in the seriousness of what Clinton did compared to Libby's
crimes. I understand why though.

Hawke