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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (1181)	9/18/1998 7:23:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

And if someone cooperated with others to reveal grand jury information, they can be charged with conspiring to commit criminal contempt and/or to obstruct justice. Raises an interesting question: if reporters printed information they received from someone on the grand jury who they knew was not supposed to reveal the information, can the reporters be charged with consipring to obstruct justice? What is the intersection of the 1st amendment and grand jury secrecy?

To: jbe who wrote (1181)	9/21/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1533

<<Ken Starr has used this grand jury simply to gather evidence to submit to Congress in an effort to force the initiation of impeachment proceedings>> Considering that Grand Juries working with Starr have already obtained 19 indictments and 12 convictions, including a sitting state governor, I think you would have a hard time proving this point. I am not commenting on the main focus of Starr's investigation, but to even attempt to characterize the investigation as being used simply to gather evidence to submit to Congress is absurd. Could that argument be used for the CURRENT GJ, the one in Virginia (as opposed to the earlier GJ in Arkansas - I have no idea. The point I am making is that Starr's investigation has not been aimed solely at the President. It never was, and it isn't now. <<Now, grand juries can issue reports on what they find, but reports are supposed to be handled very cautiously and released with very careful scrutiny and restrictions, because of the damage they can cause. >> Very misleading comment. The Grand Jury did not release a report, it came from the OIC. There are no rules regarding what the OIC can turn in to Congress, nor are there meaningful precedents. The prior OIC's did not feel there was cause for impeachment, so the form of their "reports" was different both in form and substance. The only prior experience we have in current times was with Nixon, before there was an OIC. The judge authorized the release of the information to Congress, knowing full well that Congress was primarily Republican and would likely release the information. That action was well within the judge's rights, and has no bearing on Starr at all. Starr was required to provide all possible evidence, so he would have had to ask the judge to release the information. The "fault" for releasing the information to the public must either be placed on the judge or on Congress. My main problem with arguments regarding the legality of releasing the information is that the Democrats (other than Kendall) are arguing that it isn't fair, not that it isn't legal. If it wasn't legal, I would think that Barney Frank and friends would be pushing that point at all opportunities. No offense to your source, but the Congress has far more experienced people dealing with this issue, and the legality of the release doesn't seem to be on their radar screen.