Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (19587)	8/22/2002 8:47:24 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Your analysis is faulty. Paula Jones brought a lawsuit. She is entitled to do so under the US Constitution and applicable law. You may not agree with the basis of the suit but it did survive motions for summary dispositon under applicable law. The questions Clinton was asked were specifically authorized under a staute he signed into law. The questions were not irrelevant but directly related to proving that the actions Jones complained of were part of a past and continuing pattern of behavior....... Bottom line is Clinton exercised every legal option to avoid answering these questions and he failed. It was his legal obligation under our system of laws and jurisprudence to answer fully and truthfully having exercised all those options. He deliberately failed to do so and this failure is made more egregious by his oath of office and the fact that he was an officer of the Court.