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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (2562)	8/21/1998 6:56:00 PM
From: Jim Roof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Here's a good one for irony lovers. In the Jones deposition, Bob Bennett was able to 'rehabilitate' Clinton by asking his own questions. The agreed to definition of sexual relationship had already been laid out for both sides prior to this questioning by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett brought up the subject of Monica Lewinsky's sworn affidavit. "She says this 'I have never had a sexual relationship with the president.' Is this a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?" Clinton responds "That is absolutely true." This one question by Clinton's OWN ATTORNEY as answered by the president means that he was stating unequivocally that he did not RECEIVE any sexual treatment from Lewinsky. He as already perjured himself on this point by his testimony. What irony - nailed by his own guy! Jim

To: Doughboy who wrote (2562)	8/21/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<< When did you get a law degree? Last I knew, San Jose State was a 3rd rate state university with no law school. >> Oh really? It happens to be one of the top engineering schools in the country and that is why I have summarily had such a strikingly good time spanking your little cyber ass all over this board. I would suggest you run for cover before the next barrage Poindexter. One does not have to be a lawyer to know the law anymore than one has to be a psychiatrist to know when they've encountered a lunatic. Just my experience with you alone proves that. BTW, I know the way to the finest law libraries in the country and I have spent considerable time reading court transcripts as well as Supreme Court decisions. I suggest you try the same. Unfortunately for you my university's reputation isn't going to pull your feet out of the fire. <<<I don't need a dictionary when I'm conversing with a simpleton like you. Why would a dictionary definition of perjury tell me anything about how the law is written and how the federal courts interpret that legal term? For your information, perjury is the intentional misstatement of a material fact while under oath. Under federal law, it does not include wilfull omissions or lack of recall. In other words, you don't have to volunteer information and you don't have to answer truthfully on irrelevant facts. >>> No, perhaps you better stick to your ABC's because you don't know jack about the law. There is no such thing as an "intentional misstatement", an intentional misrepresentation, yes. A misstatement is a mistake in the understanding of the question and not punishable as perjury. That is why witnesses can change their testimony later on when they leave the grand jury. The court allows this to a certain degree because a grand jury is not a trial case until it convenes and the decision is made to send it on in that direction. However, an intentional misrepresentation of fact while under oath is defined as perjury. Why do you think the president was so enraged when they asked him about specific sex acts and he REFUSED TO ANSWER YOU DIMWIT!! You see Doughbrain, you're boy had his chance but he didn't count on the dress. Your boy simply got caught with his pants down and absolutely could not figure out exactly what lies to tell and he still can't. You can justify his behavior and you can try to preclude his being impeached with all the psychobabble you can muster but you will soon find out that no one is buying your game.