Comments on: Parsing The Eye Of The Needle http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/05/parsing-the-eye-of-the-needle/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:07:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/05/parsing-the-eye-of-the-needle/comment-page-1/#comment-62716 Gaius Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:29:41 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/05/parsing-the-eye-of-the-needle/#comment-62716 As was pointed out in the post, Ed. But it is a distinction with no difference. Yes he avoided a trial - but he admitted, in public, that he had committed perjury. As was pointed out in the post, Ed. But it is a distinction with no difference. Yes he avoided a trial – but he admitted, in public, that he had committed perjury.

]]> By: Ed http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/05/parsing-the-eye-of-the-needle/comment-page-1/#comment-62714 Ed Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:12:11 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/05/parsing-the-eye-of-the-needle/#comment-62714 Boortz said that Clinton was convicted in a criminal case. When challenged on that, he repeated it, insisted he was right and that Clinton was convicted criminally of perjury. That is wrong. Flat out, historically wrong. And wrong is not "...splitting hairs." And unfortunately, there are listeners that will believe that Boortz was right, spreading yet more historical illiteracy. He was impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate and he gave up his law license to be, in the article you cite, "...free of the prospect of criminal charges." What's wrong with being accurate? Boortz said that Clinton was convicted in a criminal case. When challenged on that, he repeated it, insisted he was right and that Clinton was convicted criminally of perjury.

That is wrong. Flat out, historically wrong. And wrong is not “…splitting hairs.” And unfortunately, there are listeners that will believe that Boortz was right, spreading yet more historical illiteracy.

He was impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate and he gave up his law license to be, in the article you cite, “…free of the prospect of criminal charges.”

What’s wrong with being accurate?

]]>