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

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (363505)	12/18/2007 6:45:46 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574260

"So (a) yes she did rule that it was inadmissible (or might be inadmissible), and (b) she did admit that they might be relevant." And she said is wasn't essential to the core issues. Nuance as much as you want. That is what she ruled. "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. " Well, Tench, perjury was one of the issues, now wasn't it? Yet the judge decided it wasn't essential to the core issues. That doesn't misrepresent the facts. Yet you are claiming you know better. Odd, that. "TopCat is right on the money:" You would quote one of the posters here who adds nothing but personal attacks.