Windsock Re..No Grand Jury ever issued an Indictment of Bill Clinton. <<<<<<
Sorry for the delay answering this post. I had felt that Starr's grand jury had indicted Bill before Starr gave congress the Starr report. However there seems to be a legal problems with that in that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore before Starr could issue an indictment, Starr had to submit a report,(not an indictment), to congress who then had to impeach, and then the senate had to convict Bill on the articles of impeachment and also remove Bill from office, before Starr could issue an indictment. Ray took over for Starr and worked out a deal with Bill, such that if Bill gave up his license for 5 yrs. admitted to lying (or misrepresentation of the facts.); and paying of his own legal bills; Ray and the state of Ar. bar would drop their suits. So, in the end Bill hasn't been indicted yet, and won't be in the future because of Whitewater. The Paula Jones case didn't require an indictment.
Maly - Re: "Those are the two definitions in question. An indictment to me is the judgement of the grand jury that there is a valid case."
Were you born an idiot or did you have to work at it ? <<<<<
You obviously are of higher intelligence than me, so why don't you enlighten me as to what you consider a decision by the grand jury to indict or not indict is.
While I searched for the indictments I came across this definition.
http://www.fosters.com/vitals/indictments.htm<<<
"an indictment is not an indication of guilt; rather it means that a grand jury has found sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. "
In my definition I said that An indictment to me is the judgement of the grand jury that there is a valid case." <<<
If you substitute "has found" for judgement and substitute case for trial, the definitions are similar. Both definitions are saying the same thing using different words. If you have a definition which is substantially different, then provide it with a link, but for now I will stick with my definition no matter how much you ridicule me.
New World Dictionary definition: the formal and unanimous finding of a jury on the matter submitted to them in a trial <
Why did you only mention the first definition when there were two definitions, the second being; 2.) any decision or judgement. If you use this definition, I believe a finding of sufficient evidence is the same as saying the jury decided there was... or saying the jury judged there was... sufficient evidence. What is the difference. |
