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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: McNabb Brothers who wrote (16353)12/22/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd  Read Replies (2) of 18691
 
Hank,

If he can be shown to have broken the law, that's one thing.

If all he can be shown to have done is something that lots of other guys in power do regularly, then it's really too bad, he's a jerk, but there's no law against that.

And incidentally, you should look up the definition of perjury. "Lying under oath" alone doesn't cut it. It must involve:

* LYING under oath
* About something which is MATERIAL
* KNOWING that it was a lie at the time you told it.

Bill will claim that:

* He wasn't lying, since he didn't consider his relationship with Monica "sex."

* He certainly couldn't KNOW he was lying, given that he didn't think it was a lie in the first place.

* A consensual relationship with a woman who willingly offered her "services" was not at all material to the Paula Jones case.

I think the first two are pretty absurd arguements. The latter is very strong. Most attorneys I know are very surprised that the entire line of questioning wasn't dismissed as irrelevant.

Bottom line to me is that he's a jerk and an embarrasement. But doubt he could ever be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a normal court of law. In fact, doubt a normal prosecutor would bother with the case at all.

mg
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext