The regime explains that it's a "STATE Of MIND!"

[LWW]

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>CRIMINAL JAMES SENSENBRENNER:</span> “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>ASST TO THE GODKING HOLDER:</span> “it all has to do with your state of mind"
GOT ANOTHER CLEANUP (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html)

[Soflasnapper]

Yep, absolutely true.

Young people without experience, maybe just starting high school, may not be able to appreciate the difference.

Wait, of course even they do. Everybody does. People saying they do not understand what is being said here are either lying or they are very dimwitted. (LWW? Never mind, we all know which you are.)

Even if they don't know the Latin phrase, most people get the difference encapsulated in the legal phrase, mens rea.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.</div></div>

To be exactly on point for this case, lying does not involve merely stating false accounts. One must know they are false, and deliberately state them with that knowledge anyway.

The Weekly Standard knows better than to question this absolutely correct explanation. And they do not question it, except ironically, to call the explanation 'Clintonian,' apparently a synonym for an explanation of a legal standard and its interaction with common English language speaking.

And to be wholly frank, it is likely that Sensenbrenner may be the only person in Congress who does not know that not every false statement is either a lie or an act prosecutable as a federal felony.

[LWW]

Have you no honor at all?

[Stretch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you no honor at all? </div></div>

LMFAO!! Concidering the sourse, that is just too funny! St.

[LWW]

Where do you buy this "CONCIDER" my friend?

Is it made by convicts?

[Soflasnapper]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you no honor at all? </div></div>

Sensenbrenner has no honor, to accuse DOJ officials of committing multiple couts of federal perjury, when he has no evidence to support that as of now.

A serious charge deserves serious evidence in hand prior to the charge. He has nothing along the lines of perjury proof.

Had he wanted to temper his remarks or question, and ask why it was that misleading and/or false information was provided the Congress by the DOJ, he'd be well within reason, and of course, he deserves and will get his answers.

Fortunately or unfortunately, when a guy starts off with so serious a charge without the slightest evidence, reasonable people will question his judgment and opinions as extremely biased.

[LWW]

Once you accept the legal construct that lying is just a state of mind, evidence becomes impossible. That's why the regime demands doublethink of his peasants ... much like yourself.

What's funny is that you claim this while insisting that GHWB rode on magic planes with magic pilots to cut an "OCTOBER SURPRISE" ... even though every piece of "EVIDENCE" ever presented was shot down even by the demokrooks to it's moonbattery content.

Tell me some more about the Obregons ...

[Soflasnapper]

So, you believe any untrue testimony, whether caused by faulty memory, mishearing or misinterpretation of the question, even on non-material points, are all the same as felony perjury?

You do not believe that an honest belief that one is telling the truth (although may not be, for reasons I state above and others) is an affirmative defense against the charge of perjury? That you do not have to know what you are saying is untrue for it to qualify as a lie?

Fine, but then you speak a different language, and really don't understand how the law works.

Sensenbrenner asked why false, or incomplete, or misleading testimony or written responses are not exactly the same as perjury under federal statutes. Holder provided the correct answer, that it depends entirely upon what the person knew or didn't know at the time, their beliefs on the matter, and their intentions.

This is not double think, it is legal think, which I agree, appears far beyond your ability to comprehend. Doesn't make it wrong, however. And it certainly doesn't make evidence impossible, whatever that may mean.

It does make perjury harder to prove, because one must then examine the circumstances to show the party must have known, should have known, these things were false, and then hear the explanation as to why he didn't anyway, and see if that is remotely credible or not.

Take for instance the question of whether Mr. Rupp, I think it was, was lying, actually committing perjury, when he claimed that he had piloted a plane to the Paris meeting.

His belief would have had nothing to do with it, compared to the fact of whether he did it, or did not do it. For if he could be shown to have not left the country, then he must have been lying when he said he did, because that cannot be a matter of mistake or error-- flying bigwigs out of the country and/or back isn't a routine matter, where one could mistake one week-end's flight with one group for another on another week-end, accidentally.

As we will recall, that man was acquitted of perjury upon trial of the evidence that he had committed perjury. Somehow, they simply couldn't prove he didn't fly out of the country, although that should have been easy to prove, one might think.