[nickcarraway]

I guess the triumph of Clintonism is complete, then, since perjury is no bid deal.

Please explain to me how some expert being wrong about the plot of a Law & Order epsiode was relevant to the Andre Yates case.

I hope Stewart does appeal, because it was a bogus charge, an example of trophy-hunting.

[Cold Heat]

It was not perjury.

The guy used the word "I" when he should have said "we". The test was not in question.

As to Yates. She should be under the prison.

I did not follow the case, and I don't watch Law and Order. I really don't have clue, but I guess nuts is nuts in this case, Nobody seems to be able to argue otherwise. That is all I know about it.

Again, you must admit that there is not much point in re trying it. She would still be nuts.

You don't toss cases because of something that had no effect on the verdict happened.

A case that might get tossed is Petersons, if I ever saw one that qualified. That case was a mess.

[Cold Heat]

it was a bogus charge, an example of trophy-hunting.

The charge was legit, and the reason was that she was a officer with the NY Stock Exchange. She was a trained broker.

She got caught in the net.