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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Diane who wrote (903)	1/25/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 20981

I remember from the OJ trial that it's only in criminal trials that you can plead the 5th and not answer questions. Paula's case is a civil case, so he would not have that option. This is accurate. However, if obstruction of justice and perjury charges are brought, then it is a criminal matter.

To: Diane who wrote (903)	1/25/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 20981

Repeating.. the bottom line for me is that most people (and I include those in high office), distinguish between lies about their private lives and those about their professional lives. Most of us believe that what happens between consenting sexual partners is no business of any state agency or authority, therefore it seems to me clearly an ethical and moral breach of basic human confidentiality for the government to be investigating this at all. All of the fallout of potential perjury stems from this kind of personal investigation. I would guarantee that 99% of all Americans would lie if asked extremely personal questions about their or a family members or close friends sexual habits... even under oath, and especially in casual conversations. For example, if a government offical took testimony on whether or not a womans father ever attempted to have sex with her.. true or not, most decent people would say no out of respect for themselves in a public sense and for public presentations of family loyalty and trust. Its at this level of attack that Starr is trying to get the President and its dishonorable from step one. I don't believe that perjury in a personal adult sexual context is any grounds for government exercise of law unless the actions themselves are criminal between the involved parties. Jim

To: Diane who wrote (903)	1/25/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

I remember from the OJ trial that it's only in criminal trials that you can plead the 5th and not answer questions. Paula's case is a civil case, so he would not have that option. Yes, now I remember that that's why OJ had to testify in the civil suit. But still there must be some limits. What they ask must arguably be relevant to the case at hand, I should think. And....though I think OJ was guilty as hell, I really don't think a civil trial following a criminal trial should be an option. Double jeopardy. Yeah, he THOUGHT he had something to lose. This is the problem, I think, with the Legal Mind. From the start he's been incapable of understanding what's really important; thinks that by using the right and unassailable phrases he can fool everyone. Works in a court of law, because of legal conventions, but makes a bad impression on the public.