Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dougjn who wrote (4275)	9/21/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) of 67261

Doug, glad you're not a lawyer.... >>There was also no legal basis for requiring him to answer. He could always refuse to go forward on fifth amendment grounds.<< Exactly the point I made to you. Instead of not answering within the fifth amendment grounds, he simply refused to answer, based solely upon his personal interpretation as to relevance. Any other person would have those "answers" stricken as "non-responsive" have the question posed again and if the person persists in refusing would then be held in contempt. For political reasons this president chose not to claim his fifth amendment privilege but then proceeded to hold the GJ in contempt by refusing to answer relevant questions. bp

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next