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: jim kelley who wrote (85282)	12/14/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: Elwood P. Dowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Jim... Does it concern you that Michael Dell and his cronies have sold so many of their shares this year??? jajajajaja El

To: jim kelley who wrote (85282)	12/14/1998 4:51:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

*OT* Jim, Re >You are wrong about Monica as well. She was using the same definition as Clinton.< Yes, she was using the same definition. Under that definition there is absolutely NO DOUBT that she had sexual relations with him. Or are you arguing that she did not touch the Presidential genitals? That would be quite a trick. Perjury 1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony in a criminal proceeding, whether given in court or by affidavit. --from The American Heritage Dictionary Yes, Jim, the grand jury was a criminal proceeding. Again, for those of us with less legal experience, what is the difference between "lies and misleading statements" under oath and perjury. Re>You seem to feel that you have the right to impeach Clinton because he irritates you and outmanuevers his enemies linguistically. I say he has a right to defend himself from the spate of groundless investigations that he has been forced to endure.< Two assumptions, both wrong. I am for impeachment (as a private citizen my only "right" here is to state my opinion) because I believe he committed the felony of perjury. The "spate of groundless investigations" were NOT groundless (Were the McDougals innocent?). Several continue. Assuming the pundits are right and the Senate doesn't convict we will be right back here in a year on different and much more serious charges.

To: jim kelley who wrote (85282)	12/14/1998 11:09:00 PM
From: Stockjet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

jim kelley: OT <<...the difference between lying, misleading, and perjury>> The oath is: "Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God)?" It simply does not permit lying and misleading. <<You are wrong about Monica as well. She was using the same definition as Clinton.>> Of course, she was . Clinton trained her to use it in order to prevent her from giving truthful testimoy. That's subournation of perjury. It's also obstruction of justice. <<Clinton...outmaneuvers his enemies linguisticly.>> Is that something you admire in Clinton? The oath is not about outmaneuvering linguistically. It's about giving truthful testimony. <<I say he has a right to defend himself...>> I also say he has a right to defend himself. He does not have a right to commit perjury to defend himself.