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: wonk who wrote (5036)	9/23/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 67261

Well, why don't we let the Court of Appeals decide who is wrong. I interpret the Judge's ruling quite differently than you. We'll discuss it again once there has been a further ruling. Even apart from the Burlington decision, she has a case for appeal based upon the judges interpretation of "rigorus standards for establishing a claim of outrage". The appeals court judge could simply re-instate the case if the judge considered the behavior up to the "rigorous standard" as interpreted by Judge Wright. The removal of the damages requirement for Jones per the Burlington decision simply augments the case, leaving the only hurdle to overcome the "outrage" aspect of the judgement. Add to that the fact that Clinton's attorney filed a false affidavit on Clinton's behalf, her case becomes even more compelling. Judge Wright is in a very tight spot here. Clinton just says he didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky according to his very peculiar interpretation of the definition set forth by the court. The affidavit says she had "no sex of any kind, shape or form with Clinton." Clinton affirmed to that saying that the affidavit was "absolutely correct". Clearly a lie. Judge Wright has left open the sanctioning of Clinton either by a contempt citation or summary judgement for Jones. It remains to be seen how she will deal with the abuse of her court. bp