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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (39967)	12/18/1998 10:30:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

"Wow, think how much more than 850k Jones would have been paid if it were not such a weak case." Probably so. As I said, the rules are different for the president. If her alleged harasser had been anyone else, her feeble attempts to prove how "damaged" she was would have been thrown out of court even more quickly than they eventually were. Assuming she could have gotten a lawyer. "Is it standard practice to let the accused read the indictment in this country?" May I remind you of something Ken Starr has obviously forgotten, that the independent counsel is not supposed to be a prosecutor, but to present evidence to the Judiciary Committee. And it is, indeed, standard practice to show the defense evidence collected during the discovery phase of a trial (lawyers on the thread, correct me if I am wrong). Nixon's lawyers got to read the evidence sent to the Rodino committee before it became public. "The place for the trial is in the Senate. The trial is where the cross examination should take place. What sort of investigation would have changed the facts?" It is the Judiciary Committee's job to investigate the charges before sending the question to the House & Senate. They did not want to do that because a) some of the charges might not hold up (Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky are not the world's most credible witnesses), b) the "yuck" factor would be very strong (I don't think I have to explain this point) c) it would become clear that subject matter in question was "did he first touch her in November or January?" or some such trivial point, and d) they have a very weak case for perjury. Bill Clinton set out to lie/mislead/prevaricate/evade under oath without actually committing perjury, and he probably succeeded. Perjury has to be material, deliberate, willful, clearly false, and above all, proven. No, Bill Clinton isn't being impeached because of the severity of his misdeeds. He's being impeached because a large minority of the House really hates his guts.