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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (363478)12/18/2007 4:41:06 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574127
 
CJ, > She didn't rule that it was inadmissible. She ruled that it didn't affect the case.

a) Link or it didn't happen.

b) "Material matter" means that it could affect the case. Even if a judge later determines that the testimony wasn't admissible (or in your "nuance," didn't affect the case), the fact is that it's still a "material matter" with regards to perjury.

> You need to tell the judge. She felt differently. Since you are undoubtedly right, why not let her know?

Not the first time you used that escape tactic:

Message 23276828

Tenchusatsu



To: combjelly who wrote (363478)12/18/2007 8:41:54 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574127
 
The fact is that Clinton did indeed lie under oath on a material matter."

You need to tell the judge. She felt differently. Since you are undoubtedly right, why not let her know

I think he may have a case for a lawsuit.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News