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: combjelly who wrote (613928)	5/31/2011 5:23:03 PM
From: jlallen	3 Recommendations Respond to of 1580067

Clinton LIED dipshit....he tried to put himself above the law...a law that entitled the Jones people to ask the questions that Clinton lied about....the ones he lied about in that deposition and in front of a grand jury....a law that Clinton himself signed into being to be made applicable to the rest of us.....violating both his oath as an officer of the Court AND his oath of office.......maybe there was no perjury...but what the lying scumbag Clinton did was worse.... Clinton is a lying scumbag...a confirmed lying scumbag.....and splitting hairs over the legal definition of what the lying scumbag did says a whole volume about you....

To: combjelly who wrote (613928)	5/31/2011 5:38:51 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580067

CJ, > If it isn't material, it isn't perjury. I'm sure Martha Stewart would have appreciated such "logic," since none of the issues she lied about were material to any valid SEC insider trading case. Same with Barry Bonds. No case against steroids? No perjury about steroid use. I don't think the "material" requirement of perjury can be made invalid after the fact, but then again, I'm not a law expert. Just a guy who noticed very public cases being decided differently based on a whole set of circumstances. Tenchusatsu