From: “X” <xasper8d@lobo.net>
To: “Petro” <declan@well.com>
Message Hash: 8eb81172ccdbe7cc140720f7ff17d051c695927c4fcaac2efdc4cf8a72863c18
Message ID: <000101bddff3$d5e14840$9f2580d0@ibm>
Reply To: <v03110709b222df0b20fe@[206.189.103.244]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-14 02:28:16 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:28:16 +0800
From: "X" <xasper8d@lobo.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:28:16 +0800
To: "Petro" <declan@well.com>
Subject: RE: Clinton's fake apologies
In-Reply-To: <v03110709b222df0b20fe@[206.189.103.244]>
Message-ID: <000101bddff3$d5e14840$9f2580d0@ibm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
What chance is there that the Paula Jones case was dismissed BECAUSE Wild
Bill lied under oath?
Remember OJ?
X
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cypherpunks@minder.net [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@minder.net] On
Behalf Of Petro
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:03 AM
To: Jim Gillogly; declan@well.com
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies
At 10:49 AM -0500 9/12/98, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>IANAL (feel free to weigh in here, Unicorn), but I heard on one show or
>another that lying under oath is perjury only if it's material to the
>suit. Since the Jones case was dismissed, it was argued that even if he
>lied then, it wasn't material and thus wasn't perjury -- they claimed that
>nobody had every been convicted of perjury for lying in a case that was
>dismissed.
Return to September 1998
Return to ““X” <xasper8d@lobo.net>”