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: Janice Shell who wrote (3566)	1/29/1998 9:32:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Clinton was already deposed, if he lied there he lied under oath. Therefore, those lies (if proved) would be perjury. I figured Starr wants Lewinsky to contradict testimony in that deposition, or maybe not. That deposition is sealed and in the judges private possession, so who knows what is on it.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (3566)	1/30/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, with regard to the Judge's ruling on Starr's motion I heard on the Geraldo show (you may not get it there in Italy <G>) that the Lewinsky issue is not sufficiently relevant to the Jones case. Therefore, she was excluding her testimony from being a consideration in the Jones case or words to that effect. The lawyers on the show offer the opinion that this ruling was harmful to Starr's efforts. Because there can be no perjury now where the testimony is not material to the issue of the case. Since the Judge may have now excluded both Lewinsky's deposition and Clinton's deposition with respect to Lewinsky, the issue of perjury may have just evaporated. There was additional discussion about an argument and rules that might still allow it to go forward, but it seemed that the reasonable result would be that technically there may have been no perjury. Now the issue of obstruction of justice may still be a problem, but this may be harder to prove. Not even Presidential semen can create a nexus with obstruction of justice. Imo Starr would need Lewinsky at a minimum and probably for impeachment Vernon Jordan to contradict. Regardless of what the facts may be, I think this is unlikely now. Before people start the drive-by shootings here at my house, let me be the first to say that I think that if things go this way, that Clinton may have escaped by the skin of his teeth - despite his occaisional flirtation with the truth.