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: richard surckla who wrote (85552)	12/16/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Richard, don't play games by making up the law as you go along. You said What Clinton has done was to commit a crime by lying under oath. and that is flat out wrong. READ THE LAW. It specifically talks about MATERIAL MATTER. Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court never said anything of that any misstatement under oath constitutes perjury. You are simply making this up, and don't have the decency to admit that. Who defines materiality? The court does. Now tell me how the fact that a man has had a consensual oral sexual relationship is material to the charge of sexual harrassment. If it is, perhaps Henry Hyde should sued for sexual harrassment. And do you know that the court, when it threw out Paula Jones suit assumed that all of her allegations were true? And that even if everything that her lawyers alleged were true (which included Clinton engaging in consensual, extramarital sex) she did not have a case? This speaks directly to the issue of materiality. Are you also aware that the judge in the Jones case defined "sexual relations" as exclusively coital? If what I said proves to be true, would you change your mind on the issue? I leave the consequence of Clinton's extramarital relations where it belongs -- in the Clinton household. It is an issue between him and Hillary, and they don't need Henry Hyde's help in the matter. TTFN, CTC

To: richard surckla who wrote (85552)	12/16/1998 2:04:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 176387

In the court cases, I have seen most people lie under oath. Just about any divorce case is full of lies. the judges lie. The witnesses lie. The plaintiffs and defendants lie. In fact, the daytime TV court catches people lying all the time. The congressmen and the senators lie about their motivations to the American people. CPQ lied about its inventory early this year. The Armed Forces lie to the families of dead servicemen ( really it was on TV)., etc. The only company that does not lie is Michael Dell, so far.