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 (4634)	9/22/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

He in effect admitted to his tactics since he gave several speeches about persecution by his opposition justifying his actions. His only defense is that the questions were too vague. He has no defense for that submitting that afidavit which he knew to be purjurous, and for putting up aides to testify to false statements that he made. They're predicting that the impeachment hearings will run to about June of next year.

To: j_b who wrote (4634)	9/22/1998 12:28:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<No one I have spoken with believes him when he says he didn't believe oral sex was sex.>> I guess you didn't watch closely, or with precision. In a criminal case it would all be broken down, it bite size pieces, by the defense attorneys. It is irrelevant whether oral sex meets most people's definition of sex. Oral sex performed on him is excluded under the somewhat lengthy definition adopted by the Judge for purposes of the deposition. Or at the very least, if is a fair reading of that definition. Which is absolutely all that is necessary, legally. To avoid perjury if in fact oral sex was performed on Clinton. Which he explicitly DID NOT deny may have been the case in his GJ testimony. You are really advocating a sort of know nothing ism. In a trial it would all be made clear. Really and truly. Further, there were reasons why the judge may have reasonably felt the wording she limited the definition to were appropriate for the inquiry. The Jones lawyers had claimed they were really looking for instances of unwanted and violating advances, such as Paula Jones had claimed she had suffered. So a definition that was limited to action by the President upon the woman, intended to sexually stimulate her (but excluding her unforced action upon him) made some sense. (The judge had only let the line go forward, despite no initial showing of relevance, to determine if anything relevant did emerge, and later excluded it.) Doug