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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5156)	9/24/1998 11:21:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Has Bennett made any public comments since the big revelation? I haven't seen any. Looks like he's in a real pickle.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5156)	9/24/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<You do know who Andrew P. Napolitano is, don't you?>> Betty, I have to confess that I had not heard of him before looking up the (expected and actual) origin of the piece you linked to. From the WSJ Op-Ed page, which published a letter from Mr. Napolitano today: <<Mr. Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, is a Newark, N.J., lawyer and a professor at Seton Hall Law School.>> He makes an interesting argument re: Bennett's current responsibilities. I'm sure Bennett is paying some attention, and researching his position, if he hasn't already. Mr. Napolitano's position does not contradict my argument that summary judgment for Jones is not likely as result of Clinton's perjury in his Lewinsky testimony, if he is proven to have committed perjury. Of course the verb tense limitation to the accuracy of Mr. Bennett's statement is not quite well known. Perhaps Mr. Bennett had better send a transcript of Clinton's grand jury testimony to Judge Wright to cover himself. A key element of Napolitano's argument relates to the context of Bennett's statement that Lewinsky's affidavit meant she was having "absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton." Napolitano states that the context made it clear that Bennett was including past, long terminated behavior, as well as generally contemporaneous behavior. I have not seen a tape of that deposition, and have not read a transcript of it either. In fact, I wasn't aware that a transcript was available. Was the former NJ trial court judge relying on press leak descriptions of the proceedings? I certainly agree that Bennett's sweeping statement is troubling for Bennett. I don't know whether Clinton lied to him, mislead him (e.g. said to Bennett exactly what Bennett said in preliminaries before the deposition, also only in the present tense), or told him the whole truth. It also seems to me almost beyond question that Jones' lawyers lied to the judge, repeatedly, about leaking information. Not mislead. Flat out lied. Why is that not an equal or greater source of outrage for former Judge Napolitano? Those lies if they were in fact made, together with their repeated violations of Judge Wright's strict sealing orders, were much more fundamental to her decision making. Judge Wright had allowed wide ranging inquiry into Clinton's sexual history, after the Jones lawyers argued that they couldn't be sure each matter they wanted to investigate did not include harassment until it had been fully questioned. So the Judge decided to defer a decision on the materiality of the Lewinsky testimony until after it had been fully gathered (even though there was no initial showing of likelihood of harassment there whatsoever), with the understanding that he strict sealing of the testimony and all discussion of it, would protect the President from prejudicial effects. Who says Federal Judges cannot be nieve? Of course, the judge did later throw out that line of testimony as not necessary to a fair determination of Jones's complaint. But not before Jones' lawyers had leaked it like sieves. Doug