From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:06:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
Message-ID: <19980919231520.21440.qmail@hades.rpini.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 19 Sep 1998, Anonymous wrote:

> > nobody@remailer.ch wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
> > 
> > > Presumably he should lie to protect the state.
> > 
> > Then don't take the oath:
> > 
> > To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
> > 
> ...
> 
> > > So lieing per se isn't the problem.
> > 
> > No, it's the fact that he took an oath to tell the truth and didn't.
> > 
> > > Murky water
> > > for impeachment, methinks.
> > 
> > Then you don't think very well.
> > 
> 
> What? To tell a lie is one thing, but if you preface it with "I'm telling the truth",
> then that is really really bad? I still think you're drawing a very fine line.

Well, kind of. If some public figure comes up before the nation and says
quietly "I did not have sex with Brenda the Barber," that's one thing. 

If the same public figure goes under oath and then lies, it's another. In
the first case, he's exercising freedom of speech, though there could be
some argument as to whether somebody in a public office has the right to
lie like that. In the second case, he's trying to throw a wrench in the
justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under
oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's
basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press
charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes.

> I'm honoured to draw an ad hominem before revealing that I'm on AOL.
> 
> -- an anonymous aol32 user. 

Actually, the amazing thing is that you're from AOL. You're coherent, you
quote, and you know how to use a remailer. One in a million. ;)