SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4695)10/27/2005 11:05:41 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541622
 
He walked, was not charged, which was especially lucky, or whatever, for him since it seemed that he was dead in the water on the subornation claim.

As to possible perjury in the Fitzgerald investigation, you are still confused, but I'm obviously speaking to someone who is not listening or not reading or is obtuse on purpose.

But that's cool, I know where you're coming from, and I'm busy, and don't have the time or the inclination to educate you on the rough legal points concerning perjury and its subornation.

Start from this premise, and figure it out on your own: perjury is purposefully testifying falsely at a legal proceding while under oath.



To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4695)10/27/2005 11:23:31 AM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541622
 
There was never any perjury whose intention was to take us to war.

How about Bush's State of the Union address where he said there was proof that Iraq was making nuclear weapons. He knew at the time that even Britain did not believe the forged documents.

The State of the Union address is a very special speech. It is a communication required by the Constitution and it is required to be accurate. It's no ordinary talk. It is inherintly under oath.

TP