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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10886)	9/21/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Right, perjury. Aside from the usual political suspects (say, George "out of the loop" Bush), want to know else has perjured himself recently? Takes us back on topic, actually. Maybe that other Bill, the brilliant Bill Gates? He was deposed just recently, you know, and word was, he couldn't remember a thing. About the big browser battle that was Microsoft's prime objective for, what 2 years? Or maybe 4 if you go by the revisionist history? Bill Gates, revered as the most micromanaging of hands on manager, also managing his own legal defense. He just couldn't remember any email he got, or any he sent either. You think your Bill's going to 'fess up and take the hit there? Aside from which, Bill Gates' testimony was supposed to be public, by law, as opposed to Bill Clinton's, which was supposed to be secret. But, those DC appeals judges wouldn't want to take a chance revealing the precious Microsoft trade secret that Bill Gates has suddenly gone prematurely senile. Don't worry, I've gotten the lecture on perjury already. MSNBC said the DOJ got 12 convictions on it in the past 4 years. That's 3 a year! What conviction rate do you think that translates to, per incident of lying under oath? Then, you have the other matter that the whole Paula Jones deal was set up and promoted by right-wing political hacks, too, including Ken Starr, and funded by right-wing foundation money. None of that matters, as long as they get Clinton. Cheers, Dan.

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10886)	9/22/1998 3:12:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Hate to break it to you, but 1) Lying does not constitue perjury. It has to be material, as in relevant. 2) A consensual secret sexual affair between Clinton and Lewinsky was not material to an alleged non-consensual sexual harrassment of Jones by Clinton. Yes, this may be a technical legalistic answer, but so what? It's a technical legalistic accusation as well. Sex lies in court occur hundreds of thousands of times a year and never get prosecuted. Why? Because it's stupid. People inherently realize that people will lie about sex. To use the legal system to prosecute a sex lie is oppressive and more applicable to Iran's legal system than ours, whatever the law happens to be. I personally have witness two cases of clear perjury, one of which was provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Both of them were lies that went to the heart of the cases. Guess how many of them got prosecuted?