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 (3734)	9/18/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I agree with all of that. I felt very strongly at the time that the President should have taken the Fifth. I did not buy the notion that that was "politically untenable". If he had announced he was taking the Fifth at the end of a -- much better, and more humble -- confession speech on August 16, rather than the poor one he gave in anger probably more or less in (understandable) submission to Hillary's take on the matter, it could well have been tenable. Here's what I think the Pres. should have said. Spiffed up a bit. Not going to take the time now to do the necessary reworking, etc.: "While I admit that I did have what is commonly meant by the words "sexual relations", with Monica Lewinsky, and over a period of time, I did strive mightily to stay narrowly, and barely within the technical definition I was given in the Jones deposition. By doing that I was intentionally misleading in that deposition. Opinions may vary, especially among my strongest detractors, as to whether or not I succeeded in avoiding perjury, but I did strive mightily to avoid perjury while still also being misleading to avoid full revelation of my private life in that deposition. After long reflection I have reluctantly decided to assert my constitutional rights to not appear and testify before the Special Counsel. I am clearly his prime target. I have made this decision, even though I am now admitting my past error, because I am convinced that the Special Counsel will try mightily to get me to testify against myself and compound any perjury I might conceivably have been deemed to have previously committed, although I tried not to. I have confessed before you, the American people, the subsistence of my actions, and misleading statements, including in a civil deposition. I see no reason to subject myself to further jeopardy or to a possible legal trap, and therefore feel compelled to exercise the same rights available to every American, and which my lawyers advise me nearly every attorney would advise his client to exercise in similar circumstances." That's what he should have said. I thought so at the time. And do now. Doug