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: Brad Bolen who wrote (2646)	9/13/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 67261

Great post, I agree with the French. Starr is something out of the days of the inquisition.

To: Brad Bolen who wrote (2646)	9/13/1998 3:41:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Brad, the French don't get it yet: It's not about sex, it's about perjury, which our U.S. Supreme Court has deemed "intolerable". I guess it's the French against our Supreme Court. From the Starr Report: "The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully about perjury and other forms of obstruction of justice: In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative.(24) The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case is civil or criminal. Only a few years ago, the Supreme Court considered a false statement made in a civil administrative proceeding: "False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither reward nor condone such a 'flagrant affront' to the truth-seeking function of adversary proceedings. . . . Perjury should be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases."(25) Stated more simply, "[p]erjury is an obstruction of justice."(26) 24. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975) (plurality opinion). 25. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994). 26. United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). There is occasional misunderstanding to the effect that perjury is somehow distinct from "obstruction of justice." While the crimes are distinct, they are in fact variations on a single theme: preventing a court, the parties, and the public from discovering the truth. Perjury, subornation of perjury, concealment of subpoenaed documents, and witness tampering are all forms of obstruction of justice. ----------