George Graves wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:12:02 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):



On 2007-07-09 13:17:53 -0400, George Graves said:



On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:06:55 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):



On 2007-07-09 12:45:18 -0400, George Graves said:



Lying under oath to grand jury is NOT a trivial matter.


Not when applied to Clinton, according to your non-standards. What
about when applied to Lewis Libby?



I repeat, lying under oath is not a trivial matter. Perjury is punishable by
a prison term. I don't care if its Bill Clinton, Lewis Libby, or G.W. Bush.
If someone lies under oath on a witness stand, he or she should be subject
to
the full weight of the law - irrespective of the perjurer's position or
extenuating circumstances. One either tells the truth while under oath or
one
takes the 5th, where appropriate. There is no third road to take. ANY first
year law student can tell you that. Were that not the case, our system of
jurisprudence would be worthless.


Apparently the Honorable President of the United States disagrees with you.




You're talking about the Libby pardon, I take it? That has nothing to do with
the court or the law practiced in that court. They did their job; which was
to try, and if found guilty, sentence Libby. The fact that Bush used his
executive power to set that sentence aside with a pardon, is his privilege as
president and has nothing whatsoever to with the court and its decision and
sentence. You are really having a problem with these legal concepts, aren't
you?


PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTT That was Hannity quality hypocritical justification
spin right there, man!
Com'on man, geeze! LOLOLOLOLOL

--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson