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: Bilow who wrote (7027)	10/3/1998 11:00:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The facts of the civil "sex" perjury you cited to are enormously more egregious than those involving the President's possible perjury in the Jones case. Most importantly this is the case because her perjury went to the very heart of the suit which she sought to avoid. She lied about her sexual conduct with her patient. It was hardly a collateral matter, relating to past legal conduct she had engaged in, which might lead someone to think her more likely to have committed the present alleged offense. Further, she lied to the Justice Department, in a bid to have the government take up her defense at its expense and jeopardy, on the basis of a claim that she had acted within the scope of her employment, and within certain bounds. Her lies went to the absolute heart of the matter. They were not a cover up of at least arguably unreasonably intrusive background questions. They were a cover up of conduct that all would agree, if true, actionable. She was a psychiatrist. He was her presumably helpless, and certainly dependent hospitalized war breakdown patient. (Vastly different than a junior White House staffer, or even intern, and the President. Sure, he may be vastly more powerful than her. But she is free to come and go. Yes she may have been overawed. But she was not overwhelmed. No one alleges an imprisoning sort of power exercise.) The relevance of this case is really only in the labels one can place on it. It is obviously vastly more egregious. Except of course for the height of the actor. By far the largest part of the sack Clinton argument is based, at its heart, on the notion that any offense from someone so high ought to lead to our getting rid of him. That is just not what the phrase: "treason, bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in our Constitution means. Doug