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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (5292)	9/25/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

He clearly adopted a definition he wanted to use. That is permissible under the Supreme Court's decision. It's up to the opposing lawyers to remove any doubt about the answers they are getting through follow up, which they didn't do. They may have avoided too much follow up for fear they WOULD get unambiguous answers, and let Clinton out of the trap they thought he had stepped into. Remember, they already knew the right answers. JONES LAWYERS HAD ALREADY HEARD THE TRIP TAPE (although Clinton didn't yet know of it.) Re: your specifics on the "any person". The Judge's elimination of paragraph three helps Clinton's interpretation very much. Para. 3 clearly did cover her doing him orally. No way you'd get a jury conviction if the jury instructions properly reflected the Supreme Court's rulings. If they didn't, that would itself lead to a reversal. exchange2000.com Doug