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: j g cordes who wrote (4326)	9/9/1998 8:58:00 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Grand juries are simply fishing expeditions to determine whether there is enough credible evidence on which to base a prosecution. They are not like trials, which demand that defendants have the constitutional right to defend themselves, inter alia, by impeaching the credibility of witnesses. Now impeachment proceedings aren't a full trial either, and the constitutional rights of defendants to these actions are a bit more vague. This is why the White House wanted time to issue its report before the public gets Starr's report and screams, "Quel horreur!" But what really matters to the investor or the market historian is simply where did the market bottom in '74. I believe it did not bottom until Nixon resigned. That was the first time the All Clear was sounded. Sam

To: j g cordes who wrote (4326)	9/9/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<were they able during testimony to ask questions of witnesses or challenge their credibility? >> Yes they were. To use a relevant example - during Clinton's testimony, the GJ (because they weren't in the room with Clinton) had a direct phone line to Starr's people, and they presented their questions through that method. When the witnesses are present, the GJ can ask questions at any time during the testimony. However, GJ's in general are not there to get at guilt or lack thereof - that's the province of the trial court. In this case, that would be the Congress. The GJ is only there to determine if there is sufficient evidence to show that a case can be made. <<Were all those jurists just a prop so that the proceedings had the look of a balanced presentation? >> What makes you think an attempt was made to ge the look of a balanced presentation? This aspect of the case is not about arriving at the truth. That comes later. Too many people have been approaching this as if it were a trial, and bound by the rules we all learned watching OJ. We never got to see the workings of the GJ that indicted OJ, because those hearings (as were these) are sealed from the public to protect the jurors. We only see what comes after, just as we will in this case. The GJ has nothing to do with Starr's report - that relates to strictly political (i.e. impeachment) issues. The GJ is there to determine if any indictments should be brought. We won't hear about that (as it relates to the Clintons) until the GJ is done with their work.