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: jhild who wrote (9684)	3/4/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

>>I happen to think though that if we lose the confidentiality of attorney and client conversations, our system will have suffered a far greater harm than the crimes that are being investigated. We will have moved much closer to an authoritarian system, that recognizes no personal freedoms. I would be surprised to hear Libertarians support this kind of action. Absolute nonsense. A privilege is not an inviolable Constitutional right, though the Constitution recognizes them to various degrees. A privilege is an affirmative defense to the disclosure of information that must be asserted. President Reagan refused to assert attorney-client or executive privilege in the context of Iran-Contra because he said he wanted the truth out fast. Clinton claims to want the truth out fast yet appears to be trying to conceal the truth by any means possible. Most of his extensions of executive and attorney-client privilege are considered ridiculous by legal observers outside of the Clinton cronies. If Clinton fears a Constitutional clash and wishes the truth out fast then he would wave asserting all privileges. He would also ask Monica to do the same. He won't because he doesn't (want the truth out fast). >>I cannot accept the notion that the end justifies the means. That's Clinton's whole governing philosophy and you readily accept it in that context. What hypocrisy.