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 : Clinton Survey "Resign" Yes or NO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: del clark who wrote (663)	2/8/1999 11:56:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 697

I'll humor you this much. You say <<Perjury is NOT lying. Your comparing apples and oranges. Ask any attorney. Lying under oath (by itself) is not perjury either. That is the Law." Del, you are half right here. Perjury not only is lying, it MUST be lying. That's what perjury always consists of. As for your third sentence here, where you are right, I thought that's what I said?...As witnessed by my statement that followed the one you quoted... "Lying in court is not necessarily perjury." --Dan B Just as you say, not "by itself" it isn't. It must be material to the case- though actually, NOT always. Ask a lawyer, by all means. Yet you pretend I did not distinguish between apples and oranges. :-) You represent my words falsely- a material lie for real from you. Lying is always the core of Perjury. Has reality gotten through to you yet? Have I repeated this enough(I don't think so)? Ask a lawyer. You see, not only Did I know I was speaking of apples and oranges, I also described each one. Ask a lawyer. <<First off. You did change the facts. ... Your an admitted liar.... but you want to convict the president for lying.....Think about it. >> Oh? ...and what facts did I change? Did I materially alter pertinent facts? Materiality. My numbers could have been anything and still not have affected my point that Clinton perjured himself. My numbers were immaterial to the question at hand- and I was sarcastic with what you took as an admission. Yet too, I know what facts I knowingly altered-- Mr. Hyde today cited polls showing 85% of Americans beleive the President lied, committed perjury, and obstructed justice...all three!! It would seem I was generous to you with the "off" numbers I cited. My so called "lie" can't really even be called misleading. The presidents lies however, did have a material effect on the point-the case- the Civil case in which he employed them. That is perury by definition. Ask a lawyer. You appear to be one of those Knaves who twists my words to make a trap for fools. :-) Wow. Better crack a book, del, Perjury must be lying. Ask a lawyer. Oh, perjury could also be a mere willfull witholding of material facts. That's considered a breaking of the oath to tell the whole truth, i.e. the oath becomes the lie, and so this is legal perjury too. Ask a lawyer. By Clintons own testimony he is guilty of THAT.