|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
The full truth is that he was involved in at least one more lawsuit than he
mentioned. Worse, one of those suits he didn't mention was involved what's now a
party to the current case. He definitely failed to tell the whole truth
by answering as if the one case he mentioned was the only case he was involved
in. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Did you actually read the transcript? The court asked,"THE NEXT
QUESTION
IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN
INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT..." Hogane replied "In 2008, after my
company went belly
up,..."
...
IMO its going to be really hard to show that
Hogan
didnt answer the full truth when the question was designed only asking for
one
instance.
I think that your point is remarkably stupid.
The **intent** of the question is 100% clear to anyone with an IQ > 3. The
notion that the **intent**, which was understandable and understood by all,
should be disregarded because the wording was technically questionable to a
grammar fanatic is beyond the pale.
Moreover, Hogan has already
explained why he didn't reveal the second litigation in his explanation to
Bloomberg news -- he said he didn't do it because of a 10 year limit in the
question, which was clearly never there. And, he also said "of course I would
have revealed it, were the question not asked with a 10 year limit proviso" (or
words to that effect), which shows without question that Hogan did not interpret
the question as you suggest.
In other words, he lied. Period.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Please read the update to the article -- this argument fails. He says he
thought he was only supposed to mention lawsuits in the last 10 years. Had he
known he should mention them all, he would have.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
The only "whole truth" answer to this question is yes or no.
There is no ordinal amount in the question. The answer given
was neither the "whole truth" nor a direct answer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Questioning of witnesses is adversarial. An IRS audit is
adversarial. Police interrogations are adversarial. In
those situations you are well advised to answer exactly what
is asked and your adversary does not expect you to volunteer
information.
Voir dire is not adversarial. The purpose is to get _all_
the relevant information. Mr. Hogan failed to provide it.
By his own statements, Mr. Hogan wanted very much to be on
the jury. It is not, IMO, unfair to suspect that he had an
agenda of his own. Jurors are not supposed to have an
agenda.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
