Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

FJB

To: combjelly who wrote (819882)	11/30/2014 8:58:00 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 1586976

>> No one questioned this. Why? Are you saying the Chief, who wasn't a party at ALL to the events of that day, should have been called to testify as to what would otherwise have been hearsay? Who knows why the chief said what he said? Perhaps he just didn't know that detail, or he forgot, or he got confused or he just lied about it for some reason. None of that would be relevant, particularly given that Wilson's testimony coincided directly with the facts in the case. Are you going to ask Wilson? "Mr. Wilson, what did the chief have to say at the news conferences while all this was going on?" Wilson: "How the fuck am I supposed to know?" That is not a "huge hole," or a hole at all. It is no different from someone on CNN saying it. It just has nothing to do with the case, given that we know what the actual, documented time line is -- and we do -- and that it coincides with Wilson's testimony, which it does. It is pretty much of similar relevance as pointing out that the Prosecutor in the case is a registered Democrat. While true, it just has no bearing, so why would you do it?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next