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: dougjn who wrote (331)	9/14/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: James A. Shankland	Respond to of 567

I am not kidding you. The courts ruled the privileges did not apply. They certainly did not rule that he did not have the right to ask the courts to determine whether they did. So you're saying anytime somebody loses when asserting a privilege for the court to consider, and then complies fully with the court's decision, that that person has committed a crime? You're right, Doug. There is another irony here: my local legal expert tells me that this is a favorite tactic of some of the plaintiffs' lawyers in some of the litigation that Starr has been involved with on the defense side (tobacco, autos, etc.): press charges against your opponent for even advancing arguments in his defense. Starr has successfully, and correctly, defended his clients against precisely this legal maneuver. It is ironic that he is using it himself here; it's unlikely to work for him, either.