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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12045)	11/1/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

An issue that far eclipses the Clinton presidency is being considered. It concerns our basic rights of attorney/client privilege. We have to ask ourselves if getting Clinton is so important that we sacrifice this necessary freedom that any and every individual is allowed private consultation in defense of themselves to which no government authority can gain access. Yet some continue to argue that getting Clinton is more important. This argument is wrong for the greater good it provides, protecting all of us: "United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 347, 358 (D. Mass. 1950). The court, quoting from the comment to Rule 210 of the A.L.I. Model Code of Evidence, observed: "In a society as complicated in structure as ours and governed by laws as complex and detailed as those imposed upon us, expert legal advice is Essential. To the furnishing of such advice the fullest freedom and honesty of Communication of pertinent facts is a prerequisite. To induce clients to make such Communications, the privilege to prevent their later disclosure is said by courts and Commentators to be a necessity. The social good derived from the proper performance of the functions of lawyers acting for their clients is believed to outweigh the harm that may come from the suppression of the evidence in specific cases." Another case that argues strongly on behalf of privilege with regard to grand juries: "United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 401 F. Supp. 361, 369 (W.D. Pa. 1975). Considering a government motion to compel the testimony of attorneys summoned to appear before a grand jury, the district court said: "[A]t the base of the attorney-client privilege lies the policy that one who seeks advice or aid from a lawyer should be completely free of any fear that his secrets will be uncovered." There can be an insanity of purpose when pursuing justice or moral vindication. We are at that threshold. We can't let the pursuit of Clinton's impeachment become the noose that hangs us all. Jim

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12045)	11/1/1998 3:53:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle,I have to disagree with you somewhat here.You know if we just rubber stamp each other then when we do agree [99% of the time] it means nothing.Now I know both JLA and Bill can be a little abrasive at times[or worse] but consider this.I remember before I joined the fray on the scandal thread I lurked for a while and the few Clinton defenders were quickly hounded out.The thread was simply a bunch of conservatives stroking each other and telling tasteless jokes about Chelsea and Hillary.It was only after you, myself and a few others joined in was some real dialog taking place.I hate to say it but if the likes of JLA and Bill left this thread we [that's right you and I] would degenerate to telling fat jokes about Newt and stroking one another about how right we are.We need the loyal opposition to not only keep our fires lit but our ideas honest and sharp.As they do us[in spite of the fact that they wish we would just fade away as well] When we respond to one of their posts we are in fact refining and preparing our own ideas for criticism I don't believe that we could do this just talking among ourselves. Having spouted all this long winded philosophy I of course acknowledge that this is much easier for me to say as I personally have had to put up with little in the way of insults.While you have had more than your share.Non the less your occasional foray onto the right wing thread shows that you value the challenges offered by tough opposition.Just my opinion of course. pez

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12045)	11/1/1998 7:05:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Crap Michelle. And you know it. JLA PS I tried to post more than one liners to you. You tend to miss the point. I follow the KISS rule with you.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12045)	11/1/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

What is crap. That you,Vaughn,Who,Me and Dwight are constantly threatening people with the SI police? That is crap? Methinks not. Or is it crap that there is some other thread called Loral that I have never heard of that you and Vaughn used to frequent and they got so sick and tired of you they set up some other political thread just to get rid of you? Is that crap? Or that you were always calling the SI police on people from that thread too? To be honest I can only vouch that number 1 is definitely true and thats enough for me. As for the other two, somebody sent me that stuff in a PM. It certainly wouldnt surprise me. I stand by my suggestion that you and Bill Vaughn and whoever else start your own thread.... HEY Ive got it.... the name of the thread can be.... GOTCHA! You can lure people in with emotional political discussions... you know just your avg techniques like you use here along with everybody else (me included). Then, when the person leasts suspects it, compile a list of their slurs, and call the SI police! When they get banned, its a GOTCHA! Oh wait, you probably already had that game on the other thread didnt you. But then, nobody wanted to play. So then you came here.