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 (363496)12/18/2007 5:29:40 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574253
 
CJ, as usual, you contradict yourself:

Message 24145507

> She didn't rule that it was inadmissible. She ruled that it didn't affect the case.

And from your link:

> While Wright determined that "evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky might be relevant to the issues in this case," she decided that "it is not essential to the core issues," "would undoubtedly cause undue expense and delay," and that "some of this evidence might even be inadmissible."

So (a) yes she did rule that it was inadmissible (or might be inadmissible), and (b) she did admit that they might be relevant.

Anything relevant could affect the outcome of the case. That's the standard of "material matter" when it comes to perjury.

You just keep tossing nuance after nuance and throwing up every other evasive tactic out there, just to hang onto your position that Clinton didn't commit perjury. The fact that you are trying to hide behind "trained professionals" by misrepresenting what they say proves to me that you have nothing left to stand on.

And of course throughout it all, you pretend that you are the one "based in reality" as you continue to pat yourself on the back. TopCat is right on the money:

Message 24145067

> You have a false sense of intellectual superiority that makes you think you are smarter than others and thus your opinions are more valid.

Tenchusatsu