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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Redman who wrote (326)	9/14/1998 6:21:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

<<He tried to use every protective privilege and test every possible privilege that the office of presidency has for national security purposes. He did this to cover a two bit sexcapade with an intern. If this alone is not ground for impeachment, I do not know what is. >> This argument for impeachment is widely regarded by lawyers knowledgeable in the area as Starr's weakest, and bordering on the ridiculous. Clinton had ever right to test in court his right to assert possibly applicable privileges. It is a settled matter of law that any defendant, or target of an investigation, is entitled to assert any and all defences or priveleges which might possibly be applicable. It is up to the court to decide. In fact there is on very important privelge that Clinton did not assert, and virtually every other defendant would have been all but forced by their lawyers to have asserted: the right under the Fifth Amendment to not give testimony against yourself. Clinton in fact won on the Vince Foster attorney client privilege surviving the grave. In another case, every living head of the secret service came forward and signed an amicus brief supporting that privilege. Starr's argument here is very, very weak, bordering on absurd. Don't hold your breath waiting for even the more extreme conservative critics of Clinton, who are also legal experts, picking that one up. In fact, this is a good example of how overreaching and extreme Starr is. It is hard to imagine Leon Jaworski, the Watergate independent counsel, making such an argument. He was measured, and restrained. He truly was out for the truth, and a fair interpretation of the facts, including exculpatory information, rather than out to get the President. Doug