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 (17118)	12/4/1998 8:46:00 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 67261

Again, a very wise use of $6 to 8 million tax dollars. We rid ourselves of a corrupt politician after only 1.5 years and severely punished the bribers. The OJ jury should have convicted, but we take what we can get, eh?

To: jlallen who wrote (17118)	12/4/1998 10:21:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I think the jury had it about right. Sure, JLA. In your opinion, the jury had it about right, just like the OJ jury, eh? Vaughn wrote: The net expenditure of $6-8 million was very very very well spent, the OJ-style verdict notwithstanding. To which you responded: I agree. Just thought it was strange the Smaltz got so many other convictions, Tyson pled out and Espy walked. Weird. But then it was a DC jury. Yes, it sounds precisely like you thought the jury had it about right. On the subject of "jury nullification", maybe the OJish DC jurors actually had some legal backing for their "nullification, eh? But a federal appeals court in Washington overturned the conviction of Sun Diamond and the case is on appeal to the U.S.Supreme Court, one of the remaining items of business for Smaltz's office. The case involves the meaning of the unlawful gratuity statute, which makes it a crime to give, offer or promise "anything of value" to a public official "because of any official act performed or to be performed." Smaltz had argued that the law was violated anytime a gift was motivated by the recipient's official position. But in overturning the conviction last March, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the gift had to be motivated not only by the recipient's position, but by some official act, either a reward for a past act, or an inducement for a future one. (http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/120398espy-acquittal.html ) Jury nullification? Or a correct interpretation of the law, according to its current standing in the courts? I see the ever creative and original Vaughn is still flogging the OJ line, what's your opinion?