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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Roof who wrote (2626)	8/22/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

One only need ask former Senator Bob Packwood what the term "pattern of behavior" means to understand the impact of Mr. Clinton's deposition in the Jones' case. As I have said, irony can be a cruel mistress. Who would have thought that Mr. Clinton's desire to emulate John F. Kennedy's administration would be displaced by the ghost of Richard M. Nixon's. So far the only difference I can see is that Mr. Clinton has a velcro fly.

To: Jim Roof who wrote (2626)	8/23/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<As for materiality, the fact that the Jones case was dismissed does not alter the materiality of the testimony because it was material at the time the deposition was taken and the answers given go to the very root of the case's issues.>> I respectfully disagree. While I concede the fact that the Jones case was dismissed should have no bearing on materiality at the time the testimony was given, there is good legal authority for arguing that instances of consensual sexual relations were so tangential to the Jones case, the ML testimony was not material. At best, it's a coin flip whether the testimony on the existence of sexual relations with ML was material, but the questions re the Jones lawyers' attempts to prove the existence of that sexual relationship with ML (in legal terminology, proof of a collateral fact) were so far removed, I think it likely that they were not material (ie the question of gifts, visits by and being alone with ML, etc.). Since Congress, not a Court, is the arbiter of this case, it'll be interesting to see how these legal determinations are going to be ruled on or swept under the rug.