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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (328)	3/1/2002 8:15:14 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

When one citizen sues another citizen and is required to answer under oath, those answers are supposed to be truthful... The subject of the lie is really irrevelant. But if you're taken to court on a fraud case, which proves to have no basis whatsoever, what business is it of the court if you conceal a completely irrelevant sexual shenanigan? You tell the truth (presumably) about the fraud, and related non-offences - does the prosecutor then have the right to say "Ah, but he got sucked off by a colleague, therefore he is guilty, therefore we must punish him"? - as though the guilt were proven in the fraud case? I assume that as a lawyer, you're required to stick only to the truth in court [LOL, is this right??] So, if challenged on some completely irrelevant but embarrassing misdemeanour of your own, would you fess up and join the accused in the dock? Face it, you're just p*ssed because the worst you could prove against Clinton is that he accepted a BJ from a tacky intern. LOL, that was so worth it. And such a revelation, too :)