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: Bill who wrote (17660)	12/7/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What facts and law would that be, Bill? Did Smaltz fail to present some evidence that he should have? Was there a count that somehow didn't come under the Sun Diamond ruling? 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. . . . Ted Wells, one of Espy's lawyers, sought to demolish Smaltz's case during closing argument to the jury that the prosecution presented no witnesses who testified his client ever made a decision based on anything he ever received. What do you know, Bill? Was there evidence presented that Wells and the jury ignored? Should they just have known what you know? Would it be legally correct for them to render a verdict on that basis? I didn't follow the case, but the appeals ruling seems straightforward and relevant. A lot more relevant than OJ, anyway.