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 (17668)	12/7/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

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. So what's the deal, Bill? Did Wells and the jurors miss something? Or did Smaltz fail to make his case? And where does OJ come into it? You can't claim that Espy's twisty, turny lawyers confused the jury like Johnny Cochran, because they didn't even present a defense.