SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rambi who wrote (12655)9/20/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: DScottD  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71178
 
Yes, it was a Grand Jury investigation. The Grand Jury was convened to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against figures involved in Starr's Whitewater investigation.

This is the first time I've ever heard of anyone's Grand Jury testimony being released to the public, either in transcript form or video. Grand Jury testimony is usually kept strictly secret and is not even admissable at trial except to impeach a witness (impeach in this context meaning to question the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence, usually deposition testimony or Grand Jury testimony, that contradicts what was said on the stand). Normally, the public doesn't even know who was called to testify before a Grand Jury.

This is a highly unusual situation. Apparently the normal rules about Grand Jury testimony went out the window once the case was turned over to Congress. I think it sets a horrible precedent and it is obvious to me that the rush to get this in the public domain has nothing to do with seeking the truth but to humiliate the President, and by association any other Democrat running for office this election season. Expect the attack ads with excerpts of the video, taken out of context of course, on your local stations as early as tomorrow.

Starr's report is sick and needlessly goes into detail that isn't necessary for him to prove whatever case he has against Clinton. All the report needed to say was that there was overwhelming evidence, including Ms. Lewinsky's direct testimony, that Clinton and Monica had several sexual encounters over a period of time. We didn't need to see the other stuff.

What everyone has forgotten is that Starr's jurisdiction over this aspect of the case is tenuous at best. He had to go to Janet Reno in January to get the go-ahead to probe into the Lewinsky matter and his reason for doing so was that there were people involved in this, according to Linda Tripp, who were also involved in Whitewater and there may be a link between the two. But this aspect of the case got a life of its own and as far as I can tell, nothing has been presented in the report or otherwise to suggest any link to Whitewater at all.

Starr's dream is to be on the Supreme Court. Don't be surprised if he is the first nominee after the 2000 election if a Republican is elected President and they still control the Senate.



To: Rambi who wrote (12655)9/20/1998 3:15:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71178
 
The Iran-Contra Report published grand jury testimony, and as we all remember the streets were filled with protestors demanding an end to this gross violation of privacy. Well, maybe not, and once again the Clintonistas find that what was fun to do to Republican Presidents is unfair to do to the proprietor of the Washington DC Playboy Mansion. Sexual harassment lawsuits and Special Prosecutors were s'posed to only be used against Republicans, and it is an outrage against what is fair and decent to use them against the Most Ethical Administration in the History of America, as Honest Bill described his own regime.

Do you recall that Honest Bill's hero JFK was also a defendant in a private lawsuit as President? He was involved in a traffic accident before he was elected and it came to trial after he took office.

The latest Party Line from the White House flacks is "Sexual McCarthyism". You can always measure the desperation of the Left by how long it takes them to invoke McCarthy or to call their opponents Nazis. I feel their pain....



To: Rambi who wrote (12655)9/21/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Respond to of 71178
 
It reminds me of the ancient joke about Donald Trump and a nameless blonde bombshell. (Anyone remember that particular monument to the virtue of megalomania?!) She *begs* to have the privilege of giving him a blowjob. "Hmmm, okay", he muses - "but waht's in it for me?"