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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (170275)	5/31/2003 3:40:07 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583629

does a judge treat in the same way the president who's perjuring himself by lying about sex as the one who's perjuring himself by lying about the reasons for going to war Your lack of understanding of our legal system is showing once again. I'll remind you [again] that there are people serving prison sentences for what Clinton did -- as they should be. Witnesses cannot be permitted to decide when perjury is and is not acceptable. For lying about having sex? Could you please tell me the names of people who are in jail because they lied about having sex? And then I will give you the name of a president who committed a real crime but avoided impeachment by agreeing to resign. You really need to get your act together on this one.....this is the 21st century after all.

To: i-node who wrote (170275)	5/31/2003 3:51:25 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583629

BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY DENIED PAULA JONES HER JUSTICE. This will probably do little good because we know how disturbed you are when it comes to the subject of Bill Clinton. However, this is what the first judge, a woman judge btw, had to say about Paula Jones case And please note who were Paula Jones's backers.......that's right, some of your perverted peers looking to slam Clinton over sex. No surprise there......they couldn't beat him at the polls so they ran to the courts. Paula Jones vs. President Clinton Newly-released Jones documents reveal judge encouraged Jones to accept settlement Nov. 9 (Court TV) — U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright did not believe in the merits of Paula Jones' case as early as last January and encouraged both sides to reach an agreement, according to documents released only four days after the latest failed attempt to settle the suit. According to minutes of a closed hearing held on Jan. 12, Judge Wright said that she did not think Jones would win her case if it went to trial. Wright indicated that she wanted to talk Jones into accepting a "reasonable offer." "It it goes to trial, everyone loses," Wright said. "The court would like to talk to her and tell her that she should accept a reasonable offer, that she could have a difficult time winning her case." But Jones refused to settle, and three months later, Wright dismissed Jones' case, ruling that the former Arkansas state employee had not proven her case. Wright said that even if Jones' allegations that Clinton made sexual advances to her at a Little Rock hotel in 1991 were true, the case was still too weak to go to trial. Clinton continues to deny all the charges. Jones has appealed Judge Wright's ruling, and her petition to have her case reinstated is under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This latest dump of over 1,000 pages of previously sealed documents, the third and final release of the Jones casefiles, provide several other new details: —Some of the women subpoenaed by Mrs. Jones' lawyers tried to avoid questioning about alleged sexual liaisons with Clinton when he was Arkansas governor. The women, whose names were stricken from the court documents and referred to only as Jane Does, raised a variety of arguments including one who invoked her ``constitutional privilege of privacy.'' The judge ruled against them. —Betsey Wright sought to block a subpoena to her seeking documents about ``any woman who allegedly has had sexual relations with or asserted she had sexual relations" with her former boss. —Bennett complained to the court last December that Mrs. Jones and the conservative group that was paying her legal bills, the Rutherford Institute, had sent a fund-raising letter to citizens in eastern Arkansas. ``It is highly improper for such a letter to be sent to those who could be in our jury pool,'' Bennett wrote. Jones' remaining hopes rest with the Eighth Circuit, but the court upholds Judge Wright's ruling, Jones may not benefit at all from the suit. Instead, Jones would only have mounting debt, and Judge Wright's unheeded words urging her to settle the case ringing in her ears. -Bryan Robinson The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To: i-node who wrote (170275)	5/31/2003 4:03:21 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583629

Clearly, Paula Jones had some high powered attorneys trying her case. Where did a twit like Jones who couldn't even beat Tonya Harding in her boxing match......now there's a pair......get the money for such expensive legal help? The answer: from her rich, right wing, newly made friends. How do you assholes sleep at nite? BTW you want to know how together the joke Jones is? She spent a ton of her settlement money on her face and more specifically, HER nose....and the stupid asshole goes into the boxing ring with the nutcase from Oregon. And you think this piece of dog doo is worth all your stupid ass ranting. I wouldn't be surprised if she groped Clinton being the opportunist she is. I think a review of your values may be in order. ___________________________________________________________ Case Closed By Dan Froomkin Washingtonpost.com Staff Updated December 3, 1998 Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in return for $850,000 – but no apology or admission of guilt from the president. Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case was dismissed by a district-court judge as having no merit, but Jones appealed. The battle was immensely costly, inflicting considerable and potentially lasting damage on the president. Most obviously, without Jones, Monica Lewinsky might never emerged as a national figure. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr might never have started investigating Clinton's sex life. And the president might not now be facing the possibility of impeachment. This special report includes key stories from The Washington Post, a chronology of the case, and legal documents including the court ruling, legal briefs and extensive excerpts from depositions. You can learn more about the Supreme Court case that allowed Jones to press her case, or use our links and resources section to surf the Web for more. And our discussion area is always open. In the Beginning... Paula Corbin Jones filed suit in 1994, alleging that Bill Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel room three years earlier, when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee. From the start, Clinton denied any wrongdoing. He accused Jones of being an opportunist who went public with her story to make money and harm him politically. In May 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed Clinton's attempt to delay the trial until he leaves office. The court said it was unlikely the case would burden Clinton's time. In June 1997, Clinton offered a $700,000 settlement payment to charity, but Jones said she also wanted an apology. Lawyers on both sides of the lawsuit engaged in a brutal legal and public-relations battle during February and March, with the Jones team filing hundreds of pages of unprecedented, fascinating and often tawdry legal documents. But U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately sided with the Clinton's team motion for a "summary judgement" throwing out the case before it could come to trial. Even if Clinton did make a crude proposition, Wright wrote that it would not constitute sexual assault and that there was no proof Jones was emotionally afflicted or punished in the workplace for rebuffing him. "There are no genuine issues for trial in this case," she wrote. Nevertheless, Jones filed an appeal and both parties began a second round of settlement talks. The case was a multiple precedent shatterer. Never before had a president's sex life come under such scrutiny. Clinton's videotaped deposition on Jan. 17 was the first time a sitting president was interrogated as a defendant in a court case. And allegations of perjury in that deposition are among the 11 possibly impeachable offenses that Starr outlined in his September report to Congress. (For more information, see the Clinton Accused Special Report.) © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company Back to the top