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: Lane3 who wrote (19609)	8/22/2002 2:08:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I did not lie under oath. I didn't have any need to lie. I was a government official faithfully executing my country's laws. I should not have been asked under oath what I was asked. Had I had any reason to lie, I would have entertained the idea in the face of the absurdity of the questions. What if the policy that such questions should be asked was originated by or oked by you. This would be a situation like what Clinton faced. Does that make it any more clear cut? If he really thought such questions should not be asked he was wrong in trying to force everyone else to answer them. OTOH if he thought they should be asked then it is clear cut and obvious that he was acting unscrupulously. Tim