re: Will Vitter be the "Family Values" choice for Governor of our great state?

quote:

---

Clinton DID give intentionally misleading testimony.

---

Who was the guy at a Congressional hearing where his testimony contradicted his diary entries and said he'd lied to his diary?

My diary was never meant to be accurate.

quote:

---

To say that someone committed a criminal act with out a conviction to back it up is foolish.

---

quote:

---

To say that someone committed a criminal act with out a conviction to back it up is foolish.

---

I know that this doesn't sit with gossip based political discourse that you are mired in, but it is a fact.
Until a trial, one can NOT be labeled with having committed a criminal act.
No matter what your dog grooming law school degree says to the contrary, that is the way it is.

You're being very stupid.

quote:

---

It would be wrong to vote in both states.

---

Well, it's wrong to commit perjury too. But then just as some might get away with describing it as "misleading testimony", you could simply claim you forgot which state you were in.

Would work extremely well, regardless of domicile, if you could also claim to be in two states concomitantly, i.e., State of Louisiana and State of Inebriation.

Barack Obama is an admitted former cocaine/marijuana user. Use of which is a crime. Which he was never punished for.

You sure don't seem to have an issue with that.

quote:

---

Perjury requires more than misleading testimony. How many times do you have to be told?

---

Indeed.

For example, Clinton helped Monica Lewinsky write a false affidavit denying sexual relations with him; he intended the false affidavit to be used during his deposition, and in fact his lawyer (Bob Bennett) did use (unwittingly) the false affidavit to try to convince the judge overseeing the deposition (Susan Webber Wright) to limit questions to Clinton during the deposition.
Then Clinton himself confirmed the accuracy of the false Lewinsky affidavit during his deposition
Then Clinton lied repeatedly during the sworn deposition about his relationship with Lewinsky. There were no problems with bad recollections or unintended omissions.

As Judge Wright ruled in her contempt holding against Clinton, Clinton made “intentionally false” statements under oath.
That is perjury.

Clinton lied and enlisted others to lie for him. Considering the Jones lawsuit was about sexual harassment, and Jones’s lawyers were trying to establish a practice and pattern of sexual misconduct to win their civil suit, this was no side issue.

quote:

---

Perjury requires more than intentionally false statements under oath. How many times do you have to be told?

---

At least as many as I did in your similar misconstruction of Roe v Wade a couple of days ago.

In Clinton's case, the perjury charge failed on at least two aspects. Perjury requires materiality. The questions regarding Monica Lewinsky to which Bill Clinton gave misleading answers was not material to the case under investigation (i.e. Paula Jones). The presiding judge ruled as much. Then, even if they had been material, a line of questioning whose intent is to induce perjury rather than information is an inadmissable perjury trap. Bill Clinton was never going to be convicted of perjury by any competent judge or jury because he didn't legally commit perjury.