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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40011)	12/18/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Nadine, the Independent Prosecutor, and former Judge, Starr, appointed by the Attorney General, Janet Reno, a member of Clinton's cabinet, gathered evidence, with Reno's approval, with the assistance of a grand jury under the oversight of Judge Norma Johnson Holloway, a senior and well-respected member of the D.C. Judiciary. If it matters, and I don't think it does, Judge Holloway is black, and a Democrat. The evidence was presented to the House Judiciary Committee, according to procedures prescribed by the Independent Counsel law, which was drafted and adopted when the Congress was majority Democrat. Pursuant to our Constitution, the House impeaches, that is, determines whether there is sufficient evidence to refer to the Senate for a trial. The function of the House is similar to the function of a grand jury, which indicts and refers criminal charges for prosecution in court. The accused is not given information of pending proceedings before grand juries but is given information after indictment, prior to trial. Grand juries serve, in part, an information gathering function, and their proceedings are kept secret so as not to tip off the bad guys, as well as not to tarnish the reputation of people they decide not to indict. Of course, once the accused is indicted, he must be given a copy of the indictment. The thousands of pages of material collected by the Office of Independent Counsel is stored in the Rayburn building, and the members of the house (but not their staff) and the house counsel, as well as Clinton's counsel, have full access to them. I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, but I understand that reasonable people may differ on our conclusions in this instance.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40011)	12/19/1998 7:03:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

"her feeble attempts to prove how "damaged" she was would have been thrown out of court even more quickly than they eventually were. Hmm, I guess I still don't get why he paid if the case were so feeble. There must have been some kind of worry that the dismissal would be overturned on appeal. "And it is, indeed, standard practice to show the defense evidence collected during the discovery phase of a trial " Yes, I should have said 'is it customary at that stage of the procedure'. Discovery comes before trial but after the indictment is handed down. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment if we're going to equate it to a criminal trial. "It is the Judiciary Committee's job to investigate the charges before sending the question to the House & Senate." Call me cynical but I think you just might be complaining if they did spend time and money on investigating further. Didn't Ken Starr spend some time and a few dollars doing the investigation? "(Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky are not the world's most credible witnesses)" Credibility of witnesses is traditionally determined by the jury (or the judge if no jury) during the trial. Again, that's a job for the Senate. "Perjury has to be material, deliberate, willful, clearly false, and above all, proven." Charges need not be proven in order to take a defendant to trial. That's what the trial is for, after all. "He's being impeached because a large minority of the House really hates his guts." Umm, if that's true, he won't be impeached. They need a majority in order to do that. Barb