Reply #4: add relevance and materiality to the legal requirements

[unblock]

in both cases or fraud/perjury, the offending action(s) must be both relevant and material to the negotiations/testimony.

for instance, if bush were to knowingly, falsely testify that he was 49 when in fact he was 50, that would not be perjury (unless it was a very odd case in which that age distinction actually was meaningful). the lie in this case was irrelevant.

if bush were to knowingly, falsely testify, in a drug trial, that he only did 2 lines of cocaine when in fact he did 3, that would certainly be relevant, but it would be immaterial since it doesn't matter whether it was 2 or 3 (assuming that the difference doesn't actually put the crime into a different category based on quantity; then it would be material).

similarly for fraud, both relevance and materiality matter.

one of my major objections about the clinton 'perjury' nonsense was that his lie (though the never could identify a single false statement), was not relevant to the proceeding. whether or not he had 'sexual relations' with a consensual adult who in fact eagerly sought sexual conduct, long after the time frame of the case at hand (paula jones was about conduct during his tenure as governor of arkansas, lewinsky was during his presidency), was not relevant.

imagine being on trial for a rape 5 years ago and then being grilled about a consensual affair you had 1 year ago. ohmygod, this man is a known sexual partner! he must be guilty of rape!


not relevant.