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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (9857)	10/16/1998 4:18:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Your response is clueless as usual. >>First, you have a handful of names for the same basic act Only in what passes for your mind. >>Every other divorce case What comic books have you been reading? >>Second, I believe that the Supreme court may eventually throw these out if it gets to that, because there are rules against prosecuting people for things that nobody else is ever prosecuted for - namely perjury in a dismissed civil case deposition, even if he didn't word his answers carefully enough for the law, and he probably did. You are clueless. The Clinton administration has prosecuted many for the same. >>Third, those are accusations at this point. You are not in authority, fortunately, so they are not crimes yet. They become crimes upon conviction, until then they are suspicions, they may be facts or acts, but they are not crimes. A crime is a crime before prosecution as well as after. >>Not that I would suspect a guy with a name from a comic book of understanding or caring about any of the fine points of due process. :-) Zoltan! Buck Rogers friend? I vaguely recall him from somewhere. Refresh my memory on that, eh Zoltan. That's news to me. I suggest you check your no doubt extensive collection. And I also suggest that you get to work on your high school equivalency diploma. This may come as news to you, but old and stupid aren't accolades.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (9857)	10/16/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Charles - before you make "legal" arguments, you should get a little more exposure to the law: "Every other divorce case could result in the exact same criminal prosecutions if this were to be allowed." Are you implying judges are not now referring perjury to DA's if it occurs in a civil divorce deposition or in a proceeding in their court? Nonsense. I know they will usually offer the potential perjurer the opportunity to recant or correct their testimony, and if that doesn't happen, they usually get a warning from the court which sometimes is accompanied with a night in the clink to "think it over." When the accused continues to stand behind a lie, the court will refer it as a separate case to the DA for investigation. "I believe that the Supreme court may eventually throw these out if it gets to that, because . . . " Separation of powers doctrines specify the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the results of a Senate impeachment trial. ". . . they are not crimes yet. They become crimes upon conviction," Wrong. A crime is a crime. He is not yet a "convicted criminal" but the acts were crimes. I know that is sentence parsing, but it further demonstrates your apparent misunderstanding of the law and the "the fine points of due process." Mr. K.