Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (2818)	11/20/2000 8:44:13 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 6710

Not really. He indicated he had not studied the Texas law on hand recounts.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (2818)	11/20/2000 8:58:17 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

he's either an idiot or a pathological liar. Greg, this isn't an either/or situation. It was so shocking to me that I wrote the exact quote. I've got it in notes at home and will write to you later. It was a howler. Almost as hysterical as the Kumquat Queen's presumptuousness last week on calling the game over. CNN didn't quite know how to comment on Carvin's faux pas so the CNN point person at the Courthouse merely said that at the moment he said he was unawares of the Texas rules, that "a lot of people looked at each other in the courtroom." (Assuming we could add the "stunned disbelief" part on our own.) Did you happen to catch the Saturday Night Live send-up of that snake in a dress? It was too much fun. Best, Ray

To: TraderGreg who wrote (2818)	11/20/2000 9:50:54 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Re:"Tell me he didn't really say he knew nothing about the Texas law...he's either an idiot or a pathological liar." He said it: "I am not familiar with Texas law" !! And he did because he could not defend the contradiction. Of course if he read the Gore brief he would have learned about the Texas law because it was reproduced in the brief and discussed. Can you imagine a lawyer arguing a Supreme Court case and not reading the other sides brief? I can't. The facial expression of the Justice asking the question indicated that she had a hard time believing that too. Perhaps it depends on the meaning of "familiar".