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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (65083)	9/11/1998 2:22:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

OT Perjury (lying under oath) is a rather binary crime - it either took place or it didn't.The subject matter of the lie isn't relevant. Sorry mrknowitall, but it is. Check with any lawyer. Lying must be material to be considered perjury. There is a distinction between lying under oath and perjury. So I ask you to follow this chain of reasoning: 1. All of this grew out of the Paul Jones case which was for sexual harassment; 2. In that case Clinton admitted extramarital sexual affairs with Gennifer Flowers; 3. Clinton lied concerning his sexual relations with Lewinsky; 4. The judge threw out the case because she ruled that even if the plaintiff were able to prove each and every allegation she made, it would be insufficient to rule in Jones' favor under the law. Conclusion: no perjury existed because the lie was not material to the case. Put it another way, assuming that Clinton was the most accomplished seducer of young women that ever walked the face of the earth, what has that to do with sexual harassment? I heard a wag once comment that if lying under oath about consenting extramarital sexual relations between adults were a crime, that 80% of the population would be criminals if put to the test. TTFN, CTC

To: mrknowitall who wrote (65083)	9/11/1998 3:14:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OT Clinton(lying under oath) is a rather binary crime I recall watching films of Ike Eisenhower saying absolutely in no certain terms that no U.S. planes were flying over the Soviet Union, even as Gary Powers was parachuting down. The point is no one thought Clinton was a saint, I certainly didn't expect him to brag about his conquests on national TV. When he said no sex I interpreted that as none of your business but that kind of answer is not the way the game is played. There is just a large group which couldn't win an election, who were confident Clinton would fail, and now are desparate to discredit him any way they can so they can get back to claiming to have the one true path to peace and prosperity which just happens to favor themselves. P.S. I agree this has nothing directly to do with this thread but I don't care to argue the point with a bunch of strangers in some other thread. Perhaps an Off Topic button would be useful. I would set it and those not interested would skip over my post automaticly.