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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (261599)	6/6/2002 12:32:55 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition". Any possible perjury charge could have only come about if competing sworn testimony (to be presented in the Eliza May lawsuit against Texas and SCI) had contradicted Bush's sworn statements taken in the pre-trial deposition. There were two witnesses whose depositions contradicted Bush's statement, and they were scheduled to be called in the May case (were on the witness list)... and, of course, at least on two occasions subsequent to his deposition Bush's OWN statements disagreed with what he said in the deposition. (Possibly his 'handlers' influenced his phraseology there). Since Texas and SCI settled the May case before trial began (paying a $210,000 settlement, and having all records sealed as a condition of the settlement) this contrasting testimony was not entered into court records... and perhaps not so incidentally, Bush was not forced to answer the same questions again in open court (potentially risking a second perjury count if he gave the same testimony as the deposition, or in effect admitting to perjury if he changed his testimony). By settling, (and sealing records), potential perjury charges were no longer an issue... something, no doubt, the May lawyers were counting on. Despite what dear Tommie Watson thinks, there is a difference between saying that someone 'has perjured them selves', and saying that someone was convicted of perjury. I NEVER said Dubbya had been convicted of perjury, because he has not been. ... I guess what this episode illustrates (and the recent Clinton soap opera) is that people should be careful what they attest to when in the courts. It can come back and bite 'cha :)