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: jlallen who wrote (4812)	9/22/1998 9:38:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Good post, JLA. I think we agree. Oh no. This must mean we've started another right wing conspiracy! :-)

To: jlallen who wrote (4812)	9/22/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<He allowed a false affidavit to be entered into evidence>> Are you talking about Lewinsky's? She specifically testified, although Starr, characteristically omitted from his report, that Clinton never asked her to lie under oath. He also took the position that sexual relations, an undefined term in her affadavit, could be restricted to mean a relations in which sexual intercourse is sometimes involved. (In that regard, take a look at the FIRST definition listed in MS Bookself for the term.) Hollywood's definition may vary. <<allowed his lawyer to present a false offer of proof to the Court>> Bennett said the President IS not having a sexual relationship of any type whatsoever with Lewinsky, or very close to that. Clinton had in fact broken off the physical relationship completely eight months previously. I really do think it was incumbent on Jones' lawyers to ask the follow up here. And never has had? They didn't. It is not cute to say the present tense doesn't cover activity that had been permanently terminated more than eight months previously. It is also not being helpful, as they were not required to be TO THE JONES lawyers. <<he repeatedly violated the Judge's order not to discuss ... his testimony with anyone>> If you mean other than to his lawyers, or in response to the OIC's questions, what are you referring to? His questions to Curry did not constitute a violation. What exactly is your argument there? On the other hand, the Jones lawyers clear leaking, which was evidently wholesale and directly opposed to the reasons for keeping the testimony sealed, you seem to be utterly unconcerned about. A mere pecadillo. Why aren't you demanding that they be severely punished for their outrageous leaks, in clear violation of sealing of testimony that underlay many of the Judge's decisions, including whether to allow the unlikely to be material Lewinsky line in initially, to prove out? When the mere purpose of those leaks was to bring the Pres. down? Doug