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: Doughboy who wrote (3463)	8/31/1998 1:07:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

The "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" applies to exclude evidence illegally obtained by the Government in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment applies to protect individuals from unreasonable search and seizure by the Government. Here the tapes were initially obtained by Tripp (a private citizen) thereby not implicating the doctrines. Your statement is in error. JLA

To: Doughboy who wrote (3463)	8/31/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<If everyone was put under the kind of scrutiny that the Clintons have undergone with the same strict reading of the laws, I'm quite sure 90-95% of us would be in jail with a felony to our names.>> This is nonsense. You continue to create the "everbody does it" alibi for them, when everybody doesn't do it. Out of curiosity, what felony do you think you would be convicted of?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3463)	8/31/1998 1:30:00 PM
From: micny	Respond to of 13994

The rules haven't been thrown out, Clinton needn't have testified...he could have claimed his right not to incriminate himself, but, against good advice he believe he could successfully lie his way out of any consequences for his actions. When he lied he compounded his problems. He has noone to blame but himself!

To: Doughboy who wrote (3463)	8/31/1998 1:45:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 13994

<< No, I'm not drawing that conclusion precisely. I think that we have a responsibility as a society to ensure that the law is applied evenly and fairly, and clearly with respect to the President it has not been.>> Now I see the problem - you're discussing legalities, I'm discussing politics. As regards Starr's investigation, even though the Tripp tapes are most likely illegal (and therefore not admissible in court), any prosecutor would still be able to use them to prove to his superiors that they were going after the right person. They would also use the information to base the rest of their investigation on. IMHO, Starr's investigation has been completely legal. The ethics question would revolve around whether you think that the perjury and obstruction charges were serious enough to warrant further investigation. You (and Michelle and others) clearly do not - private matter, immaterial, etc. Others, (too numerous to list <vbg>) think it was an issue worthy of further investigation. Personally, I agree with you. However, I still don't see the entrapment part - Tripp may have gotten Monica to admit to far more than was appropriate, but what was done to entrap Clinton, the one being investigated? As to politics, as I've said elsewhere, how we got here doesn't matter - the question is, where do we go now? Since this isn't a court of law, all evidence potentially is admissible during the Senate hearings if impeachment is pursued. That being the case, has Clinton been so weakened as President that he should be removed from office? Can he effectively carry out the duties of his office with a Congress that has no reason or desire to cooperate with him? Can he effectively carry out foreign policy when he is not trusted? Can he rally the American people behind him if he persues a war against terrorism that many people (both domestic and foreign) think he started for political reasons?