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 (3824)	9/3/1998 11:59:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>>Discovery is limited to those matters reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. You can't simply ask a President or any other litigant anything. Just like a lawyer to start backtracking when you're cornered. I think you're wrong (but I'm not the lawyer). As I remember, you cannot object to or refuse to answer a deposition question on the grounds of relevance, so anything but privileged matters is fair game. Please learn something about the law before you take on a lawyer. jlallen is completely correct and you are completely wrong about the scope of discovery. You are fully entitled to object to a deposition question on the grounds of relevance and to refuse to answer it. If the deposing lawyer wants an answer she has to go before the court and show that the answer will be relevant or calculated to lead to relevant evidence, whether or not admissible. If I were sueing you for defamation on this thread (hired, perhaps, by Linda Tripp to sue you for defamation for calling her insane, and she would actually have a pretty good case if she could show damages since publication is obvious, you have admitted falsity, and even if she were found to be a public figure I would say from your past history here that you had clearly shown actual malice for anybody who helps Starr in any way, so hang onto your wallet) there is no way I could ask questions about any affairs you might have had with your sisters in law. Please stop shooting from the hip on things you don't understand.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3824)	9/4/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

>>What evidence do you have that Linda Tripp is insane? >Okay, insane was too harsh. How about paranoid, conniving, manipulative, greedy, selfish, back-stabber. How about the fact that Monica Lewinsky was asking Linda Tripp to commit a felony (the "talking points", remember?). Perhaps you have conveniently forgotten about the talking points paper, but rest assured, Starr has not forgotten. Perhaps now that Clinton admits he lied about Lewinsky, the talking points are viewed in a new light? Perhaps, Mr. Doughboy, Lewinsky has explained in full just where she acquired the talking points paper. Hmmm? Perhaps when Linda Tripp realized that she was being asked to commit a felony (she was being asked to lie and make up falsehoods if questioned about a certain other woman who has said Clinton fondled her), she sought the advice of Lucianne Goldberg, who advised Linda Tripp to begin taping her conversations with felonious Clintonites. And guess what: Lewinsky indeed later committed a felony by lying in her affidavit to the Jones court. Paranoid and conniving? No, just trying to stay out of jail. As for the ethics of taping someone without them knowing, it's not illegal in Oregon and California.