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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockMan who wrote (17017)	9/15/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: Curtis E. Bemis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

Hey-- Heard NT is laying off 3500 workers. I guess that leaves you out. Also heard Monika is passing out cigars in celebration. Get yours quick.

To: StockMan who wrote (17017)	9/15/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

stockman: <Further people say perjury is the same thing as lying under oath. They are VERY VERY different. Sheesh such idiots on this thread. Its embarrassing to even post here.> i don't know if you're a lawyer, but your first sentence is absolutely true; perjury is affirming something you know as false, which is, to my simple mind, the same as "lying under oath." i have no idea how you can say they're different. note: i didn't say perjury couldn't consist of something else, but in all the applicable trials i'm aware of, they're arent' different. second, if clinton admitted having an affair, the affair is not the big deal. it's when he wagged his finger in our collective face and said he didn't and you can trust me. that makes it lying - and it was under oath in his deposition and, i suspect altho i don't know b/c his testimony to the grand jury has not been released, that he lied there, i.e., he intended to deceive us when he claimed for instance not to remember being or ever being "alone" with ml. ruff, one of his white house lawyers, wrote in a letter on friday that "whether [wjc] was ever alone with her, depends on how you define 'alone'". pulleeezzee!!! b/c the secret service was outside, he wasn't alone? as far as i'm concerned, his statements have been made with the intent to deceive and that's a lie in my book. regards,

To: StockMan who wrote (17017)	9/15/1998 2:06:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Its clear that there is very little evidence and lot of fluff. Clinton already admitted to having an affair. No, he's said that he had an "inappropriate relationship" but that his testimony that they did not have a "sexual relationship" is "legally accurate." This is VERY, VERY different from admitting to an affair. This is why all the sexual details were in the report, to show Clinton lied in this regard. I suggest that if you are not a lawyer, dont make stupid comments as to what is evidence. Where did you get your Juris Doctorate? Remember they may have been alone, that does not mean they did what Monica said they did. In Clinton's deposition he stated that he could not recall if he was ever alone with Lewinsky. This particular perjury charge is the one that they have him dead to rights on. This is probably the strongest, most provable charge in the entire Starr case as they have both his testimony and Monica's, giving them the two witnesses they need. Further people say perjury is the same thing as lying under oath. They are VERY VERY different. What's your definition of perjury Stockman, J.D.? First a simple definition: lateraltech.com Perjury An intentional lie given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit. and a much more involved definition: lectlaw.com PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false. The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so. all rights reserved 'lectric Law Library(tm) lectlaw.com