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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (354538)	2/7/2003 1:46:10 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Respond to of 769667

<<There's a question you evaded: Suppose the false testimony is what got the case dismissed? Is it material then?>> I didn't evade the question. I pointed out that the question shows that you don't know what you're talking about. And it shows you're not even reading my posts. When the case was summarily dismissed it meant that even if everything Jones had claimed was true, she had no case. She never demonstrated damages, so the case was dismissed. Therefore Clinton's deposition was immaterial. Webber says so herself in her ruling: "The plaintiff's allegations fall short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law." That means even her allegations don't warrant a case. And here she explicitly writes that Clinton's deposition was not material: "Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment and whether other such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," Even Lindsey Graham didn't vote for the perjury charge in the Jones case. And (unlike JLA) Graham is known to take the law seriously. He's a real lawyer, and was a Judge Advocate in the military. Steve