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: E who wrote (541)	3/1/2002 1:45:27 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't have the inclination to do so now but at the time of the impeachment, this argument was thoroughly debunked by a large numbr of witnesses who testified to their skewering and imprisonment, loss of professional licenses,etc. for lying about sex under oath.... JLA

To: E who wrote (541)	3/1/2002 6:44:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Have the other cases of perjury convictions for lying about adultery been posted yet? Probably there are so many we should open a new thread for them so this one doesn't get all cluttered up with case citations. 1 - Removing someone from office is not as severe of punishment as sending them to jail. 2 - I posted about 6 people that did go to jail for lieing under oath about sex. Here is an article with some more details about two of them. projo.com

To: E who wrote (541)	3/1/2002 8:00:50 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Have the other cases of perjury convictions for lying about adultery been posted yet? Probably there are so many we should open a new thread for them so this one doesn't get all cluttered up with case citations. LOL. The law must be upheld. Everyone lying in a court of law must be tried for perjury - and all are treated equally, obviously, no question of special treatment depending on your stature or status! E, you miss the beauty of this argument... every single case contested in every single court should require a conviction for perjury.. Because if there are two sides in a contested case, one is found guilty, or acquitted. Meaning that the losing side must - by definition - be lying, under oath. And as jla has said, that's perjury - to be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. I think we can probably manage to fill a thread, citing people who have lied, in a court, under oath... ROFLMAO. Now, how about the lawyers who represent these wicked, sinful perjurers? They should be charged not only with aiding and abetting, but with conspiracy to commit said crime (perverting the course of justice) - and since conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour or felony is automatically a felony, every lawyer who's lost a case is therefore a felon, just biding his time before getting just deserts...