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: jim kelley who wrote (2647)	9/13/1998 3:29:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

So jim, how many other things do you feel are okay to lie about under oath to a duly authorized Federal Court? I'd be interested in seeing the list. From the Starr Report: "In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright's decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: "The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees."(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the President must respond. First. The first limit was imposed when the President was sued in federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such litigation is often personal. At times, that evidence is highly embarrassing for both plaintiff and defendant. As Judge Wright noted at the President's January 1998 deposition, "I have never had a sexual harassment case where there was not some embarrassment."(22) Nevertheless, Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their claims. Courts have long recognized the difficulties of proving sexual harassment in the workplace, inasmuch as improper or unlawful behavior often takes place in private.(23) To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on the ground that the evidence covered only "personal" or "private" behavior would frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to achieve in enacting and interpreting the Nation's sexual harassment laws. That is particularly true when the conduct that is being concealed -- sexual relations in the workplace between a high official and a young subordinate employee -- itself conflicts with those goals. Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright required disclosure of the precise information that is in part the subject of this Referral. A federal judge specifically ordered the President, on more than one occasion, to provide the requested information about relationships with other women, including Monica Lewinsky. The fact that Judge Wright later determined that the evidence would not be admissible at trial, and still later granted judgment in the President's favor, does not change the President's legal duty at the time he testified. Like every litigant, the President was entitled to object to the discovery questions, and to seek guidance from the court if he thought those questions were improper. But having failed to convince the court that his objections were well founded, the President was duty bound to testify truthfully and fully. Perjury and attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence can never be an acceptable response to a court order, regardless of the eventual course or outcome of the litigation. 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) ---------- From The Starr Report.

To: jim kelley who wrote (2647)	9/13/1998 10:01:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 67261

Jim, I didn't think my pop-culture allusion to the "relationship George/independent George" Seinfeld episode was so obscure. I read the report. The report contains an allegation that the President of the United States received oral sex from Monica S. Lewsinky while on the phone with U.S. Rep. Sonny Callahan. what private life he can snatch is measured in minutes if not seconds most days So the President of the United States receiving phone calls from federal legislators while in the Oval Office - those minutes would be private life? Or since, as you write The President is on call all the time, there is no private life? But again, these are issues that are not priorities now. What do we do now given what we are faced with? The President walked into a federal criminal grand jury on the very day where everyone and his uncle could agree on one very simple point - he must not lie under oath before that grand jury a) because it is FEDERAL LAW and b) from a tactical standpoint, there were legislators willing to embrace the notion that lying in a civil deposition in regards to sex does not warrant removal from office... ...and he blew it. To discuss "why he blew it" is interesting from a behavioral standpoint, but from a legal standpoint, IMHO it's moot. Even if you were to totally concede the line coming out of the Administration "private life", "out of control OIC", "just about sex", etc. (which I'm not), in fact concede every point they're making - we've got an occupant of the White House, who on the very day his Presidency arguably hung in the balance, allegedly committed a felony. Does that rise to the level of high crimes and other misdemeanors? IMHO, that's the real issue we as Americans face. Good trading, Tom

To: jim kelley who wrote (2647)	9/13/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: Impristine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

What difference would it make if he got a BJ in the back of the presidential limo or a telephone booth or the study off the Oval office do you really want an answer to this question?