SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill who wrote (634303)11/2/2011 6:01:03 PM
From: i-node3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 1578145
 
>> Where is the evidence the claims are unfounded?

The fact that the settlement was nuisance value is clear proof the claims were unfounded, at least from a legal point of view. Had there been a substantial case, the settlement would have been for a greater sum of money. If it turns out the settlement was for a lot more money, that would change my view. But she apparently got what amounted to severance pay plus a little. That's indicative the claims were unfounded. There are other points which I've previously mentioned.

>> The fact is that money changed hands to keep two women silent. I don't know how anybody, especially logical thinking conservatives, could dispute that.

There is no evidence money changed hands to "keep two women silent". There is evidence money changed hands to make the problem go away.

If there had been a substantial case you would have seen a settlement involving a lot more money than has been indicated.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News