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: dougjn who wrote (5296)	9/25/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: Peter O'Brien	Respond to of 67261

I disagree that the judge's elimination of #3 helps Clinton! In fact, I think it actually hurts Clinton. #3 does not include the phrase "with intent to arouse or gratify" so it does not overlap with #1. In fact, both of the stricken parts of the definition (#2 and #3) define more limited forms of contact without the phrase "with intent to arouse or gratify". I think it actually hurts Clinton, because this means he acknowledges looking at the stricken parts of the definition which use distinct phrases "another person" and "the person" when such a distinction is intended. This makes his interpretation of "any person" as "any other person" much less believable. Finally, Clinton asserted that he understood the definition, so why should the lawyers have to follow up? The real question is whether Clinton's after-the-fact concoction of his interpretation in front of the Grand Jury is credible.