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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (1145)	8/29/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

<<No legitimate prosecuter would indict knowing that.>> I'm confused. You're now saying Starr is legitimate? <<The case would be dismissed on a motion to throw out the tapes.>> No it won't. But even if the tapes are inadmissable (an improbable scenario) he is still indicted. Are you arguing against indictment or conviction? Those are two different actions.

To: art slott who wrote (1145)	8/29/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Why exactly would you believe that the tapes be "thrown out"? Thrown out of where? If relevancy determines whether evidence is admitted in a Court of law, the tapes seem highly relevant and probative no matter how they were obtained. There is no fourth amendment concern here since the tapes were not obtained by a state actor. In any event, in any judicial proceeding Ms. Tripp will be able to testify about what is on the tapes and about her first hand knowledge of her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky. Moreover, so will Monica. I suspect that if Monica's testimony is at odds with what appears on the tapes, the tapes would be used to impeach her testimony. Even usually inadmissible evidence can be admitted to impeach a witness' statements. I'm not even sure that Starr needs the tapes given Ms. Tripp's availability but they may be used for impeachment (of witness testimony not Presidential impeachment) purposes. But more importantly, impeachment of Clinton is a political process under the Constitution. The House votes the Articles of Impeachment and the President is tried in the Senate with the Chief of the "Supremes" presiding. The President is convicted on a 2/3's vote of the Senators. As you know, the Watergate Committee upon which Mrs. Clinton served and which researched the impeachment process wrote that scandalous behavior of the President in his private capacity (such as lying to the public) was an impeachable offense. Moreover, Mr. Clinton himself in 1974 was quoted as saying that if a President ever lied to the public, he should resign? Sounds like good advice to me. This is a President who came to town boasting he would have the most ethical administration in history and decrying the "decade of greed" of the Bush and Reagan years. He should take his own advice. JLA