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 (614358)	6/2/2011 3:47:47 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1580148

"So tell me, in the cases of Martha Stewart or Barry Bonds, what did they lie about that was "material" to any valid case, given that the insider trading and steroid charges, respectively, were dropped?" Whether the original charges were dropped isn't material to the case. What they lied about was material to those cases, dropped or not. The judge ruled that the Lewinsky stuff was not material to the Paula Jones case. It really isn't all that difficult, Tenchu. Despite your claims, those cases are not equivalent. The part where you went awry, and it is probably deliberate on the part of whomever you got these examples, is it doesn't matter if the case is valid or not. That is for the judge and/or jury to decide. But, to do so, they need truthful testimony from those called to give testimony. Which is where Martha and Barry got in trouble. However, if they had testified that they had driven there in a red car as opposed to a green car that they had actually driven there in, that probably would not be material to their cases, whether or not the case is later dropped doesn't matter.