[102628] in Cypherpunks
RE: Clinton's fake apologies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (xasper8d@lobo.net)
Mon Sep 14 11:44:27 1998
From: "X" <xasper8d@lobo.net>
To: "Petro" <petro@playboy.com>, "Jim Gillogly" <jimg@mentat.com>,
<declan@well.com>
Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:24:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <v03110709b222df0b20fe@[206.189.103.244]>
Reply-To: "X" <xasper8d@lobo.net>
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.
