BeardedBruce:

And which was why I pointed out that Don's statement was FALSE. The questions were material to the case at hand, ie Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93.

Ummm, who says you get to decide, Brucie? Who appointed you Grand Inquisitor?

If you simply maintain that it is your opinion that it should be "material", feel free to argue it and support your argument with appropriate caselaw and cites. "Argument by assertion" just doesn't cut it with me.....

FWIW, I've already pointed out FRE Rule 403 as a basis for exclusion of such, but I'd also argue that FRE Rule 404 supports my assertion, as well as the exclusive nature of Rule 415.

Not to mention, Judge Wright eventually ruled that all the dirt that Starr and the rest of the Arkansas Project had been digging up would be excluded and further inquiry on those lines ceased. But she doesn't get to determine materiality (although her exclusion argues heavily against such being found).

Cheers,