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 (5319)	9/25/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Starr his obsessed self only cites three instances of GJ perjury. Two of which are over reaching Starrisms. The first overreach is that Clinton was lying when he said he interpreted the Jones deposition definition as he did. (Not that it was a stretch, but he was lying.) Second Starr overreach is that Clinton committed perjury when he mentioned that his physical affair with Lewinsky occurred in 1996 and he thought once in 1997. Starr thunders that it began in Nov. 1995. And the Pres. himself said on the tape that he began during the budget battle govt shutdown. So he misstated the date. Big deal. Not material and not intentional. Two Starrisms. The one GJ lie we are left with is the famous diddle question. Did he diddle or didn't he. Let's conduct a full trial on that in the Senate, with cross and all the rest, don't you think. Vital, really vital. As for the Jones deposition. Firstly it did not have the potential to influence the outcome of the case. Why -- the judge said so when she threw it out. It was not essential to a fair determination of Jones rights. (Note that this decision was taken before Judge Wright threw out the whole case and entered Summary Judgement in favor of Clinton. No perjury. (He also didn't committ perjury in the Jones depo by being slippery, though that's a more involved defense. Don't even have to get there.) You loose. Even before we get to the American people's clear determination that the President's perjury (which as non-lawyers they take for granted) under all the circumstances of this case absolutely does not rise to an impeachable level. Further, in case you can't tell, the tide is turning fast now. The Repubs. are in great danger of getting wet. Very wet. Doug