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: j_b who wrote (4576)	9/22/1998 11:26:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<If this went to trial, the decision would be made by a jury. According to the latest polls (and you all know how much I trust the polls), somewhere between 70% and 90% of Americans think that Clinton lied in either the Jones case, the GJ testimony or both.>> The American people, as a public, do not understand the difference between narrowly accurate, and therefor misleading, statements, which are not perjury, and directly misstating the understood definition, which is perjury, if material. The judge would enlighten them. The defense attorneys would as well. If the prosecutor went too far in mixing up the distinctions in his presentations, any decent judge would restrain him, upon defense objections. In this way the public would be educated on the subject as jurors. Also, I think Clinton made an excellent witness on his own behalf in explaining why he had a moral, and sympathetic, reason to answer narrowly, and not helpfully, in the Jones deposition. Given their appalling misuse of that suit to drag in irrelevant but damaging information, particularly the Lewinsky matter. It would have a big impact before a jury. In addition, the case might even be summarily decided due to the immateriality of the testimony. Even if that were left to the jury, it would help the Pres. a great, great deal. That's how he would win. Clearly. (Haven't you noticed how many legal commentators have said after seeing the GJ testimony that a jury conviction for perjury would be very unlikely? And how the conservative legal commentators have tended to only weakly say that perjury MIGHT be provable, need more evidence, and then tended to shift the subject to the different standards in a Congressional impeachment hearing?) When previously their most thunderous arguments were that any President who could be convicted of perjury as a private citizen (whether or not a prosecutor would ordinarily bring such a case), must be impeached. Never mind if its a high Crime, any Crime that can be proven to have been committed by the "Highest Law Enforcement Officer of the Land", becomes a High Crime and is impeachable. Now they're moving away from even the standards of law and proof underlying a perjury conviction in deciding whether its a Crime. Seems manifestly unfair and unbalanced to me. Seems the sex "crime" is the real and driving emotional thorn in the side of the Religious and Zealous Right. Doug