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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1496)	9/25/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

Duh, ah Dipy, they (most people) won't be asked unless those kinds of questions unless they have stupidly involved themselves in some illegality, as in lying under oath in a deposition. Have you ever been deposed? You should know that going into civil actions that you and your attorney are aware of what you're going to be asked, and the bounds of relevance in the questioning are already pretty well set. If you stick with truthful responses, the questioning stays on track. If you introduce testimony that the other side knows, and can prove, is false, the game changes, and if it is proven that you were being dishonest you expose yourself to the criminal penalties for perjury. You fail to deal with this: He lied under oath. When he tried that strained creative tonsorial bifurcation, he lied again. Guess what - if he hadn't lied in the first place, if he had just answered truthfully in the Paula Jones case, he might have gotten away with that situation - there's a good chance the case wouldn't have passed muster. Instead, he lied, and when he got caught lying, he lied again, then he apparently attempted to keep other people from telling the truth, and then he lied about that. It has nothing to do with what your purported "70%" polls are saying. That's nice-to-know. I'm attacking your assertion that because a lot of people lie about personal things (again, they don't under oath without risking punishment), that it is some kind of a defense for the behavior of the President. Mr. K.