Epstein Secrets

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

t analysis, the defendant cites no case for the proposition that the setting in which the statement is made is significant, much less determinative. Cl Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (false statement 145 EFTA00077777 in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

t analysis, the defendant cites no case for the proposition that the setting in which the statement is made is significant, much less determinative. Cl Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (false statement 145 EFTA00039592 in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false

e amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence d

t analysis, the defendant cites no case for the proposition that the setting in which the statement is made is significant, much less determinative. Cl Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (false statement in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false statements count wa

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

t analysis, the defendant cites no case for the proposition that the setting in which the statement is made is significant, much less determinative. Cl Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (false statement 145 EFTA00103170 in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false