I Can Haz Dictionary?

Kwamenomics shirt by TSHIRTPIMPZ.com
Freep recently posted an article on perjury (definitions) sharing views from expert attorneys regarding Kwame’s defense. The article was also mentioned on C-Span Washington Journal. The article quotes testimony given by both Kilpatric and Beatty regarding their affair. Both were asked specifically if they had sex with one another, and additionally if they had romantic, unprofessional relationships. Both testified “NO”. Kwame surrounded his response with a convoluted litany about how even asking the question was offensive (paraphrased) “…absurd to assert that all professional women must be prostitutes…my mother is a congresswoman…” spiel. Right, doth protest too much.

Experts called upon included Larry Dubin from U-Mercy, and Peter Henning from Wayne State. Both implied there is some ambiguity in the responses which could allow doubt of his guilt. Yet both also called out Beatty’s testimony stating because she was more emphatic in her response, it could be problematic. Another expert Stuart Green from Louisana State seemed to also agree.

My question: How would it be possible the court could find Beatty guilty of lying about sexual relations with Kwame, thereby asserting her guilty of the act itself, but then turn around, and exempt Kwame of guilt, when he was participant in the act? Logic??? That makes absolutely NO sense. Hypothetically, even IF the Mayor was found not to have “perjured” himself via some contrived “technicality” (found not guilty), any fact of Beatty’s guilt would negate it by confirming otherwise. Further, she could also then stand as a new witness to the act itself. In short, no matter how they slice it, they both lied. Someone on this article commented that they felt Dan Webb ($750 dollar an hour lawyer Kwame availed from Chicago) was creative enough to navigate the verbiage loopholes to get Kwame exonerated. But I disagree. I don’t think Webb is all that creative, I think he is doing what a dude getting $750 dollars an hour should be doing: racking up his hourly bill, because the bill is essentially the point in trialing a high profile case with little chance of passing muster. Even if Webb should get Kilpatrick exonerated of perjury by some miracle, it won’t be a lasting victory. There’s more to come.

Even still, how can any sane person look at the text messages,  communications, exchanges and relevant incidents, and come to the conclusion that either of them (Beatty or Kilpatrick) were telling the truth in their testimonies of denial? For example:

Trial Testimony: August 29, 2007 Beatty Questioned by Stefani:

Stefani:During the time period 2001 to 2003, were you and Mayor Kilpatrick either romantically or intimately involved with each other?
Beatty: No. …
Stefani: And did you ever use the text message system to communicate messages of a personal nature to the mayor?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you ever receive messages from the mayor of a personal nature?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: And by personal I mean messages which were not strictly pertaining to city government matters?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you use the message device to arrange social meetings between you and the mayor?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you ever send the mayor or receive from the mayor a text message which was of an intimate or sexual nature?
Beatty: No. …

Communications From City Issued Devices During This Time Period

October 11, 2002 – Beatty to Kilpatrick: …What did you think about me or otherwise after the first time we had sex?
October 7, 2002 – Beatty: OK, I’m feeling like I want another night like the most recent Saturday at the Residence Inn! You made me feel so damn good that night. As you can see I can’t let it go!
Kilpatrick: I feel that we can do that in WV (West Virginia)+ just relax together. I need you soooo bad. I want to wake up in the morning and you are there. Make it happen. Love ya.
October 16, 2002 – Kilpatrick: I’ve been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days … relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping and making love.

How can the above be seen in any way as ambiguous???? This sort of dialogue substantiates their engagements, unprofessional relations, sexual relations, and use of city devices for discussing it (non city related purposes). As for meeting at the Resident Inn, good grief, AUDIT records. Yet these indescretions are only a few of the many others Kilpatrick and Beatty passed back and forth. Webb will need to be some spin doctor, because how anyone in these circumstances can go to a court of law and try to defend they did not lie under oath is beyond me. Likewise for the Mayor’s other lies like “I did not fire Gary Brown“… (Contradicted by Kilpatrick’s testimony here). Wow, this logic is almost (but not quite) as idiotic as Examiner Ha and McFail’s redundant objections during Mike Stefani’s deposition. Well, maybe the courts will decide to buy into it, but I don’t think the rest of society does. I truly don’t.