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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (32438)	2/6/1999 4:50:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Entrapment is discouraged because the government should not be inducing people to commit crimes. Therefore, if someone can make a viable claim of entrapment, they can get sprung, since the legal system, rather than punish the offender, has been operating for a long time under the tainted fruit theory. Now, you can trap a person if you have sufficient reason to believe that the propensity is well established, and you are merely gathering evidence that they engage in such activity, as, for example, when a police officer poses as a bar patron and plays along with a prostitute. My point is that even if you were right it wouldn't matter: 1.) Because these people were not agents of the government; 2.) Because the tainted fruit exclusion is ridiculous anyway. If someone gets material evidence of a crime, admit it. If they crossed some line, punish them; 3.) Because there was a propensity. No one induced him to get involved with Monica during a case where he knew it might come to light, nor induced him to lie rather than assert 5th amendment rights in the grand jury session, etc. He's just that kind of guy; 4.) But I do not even admit that the construction you have put on events,such as "planting " the story, is true. Just because something reasonably could be so doesn't mean that it is, and you have leapt to more than one conclusion. That's your right, but then it is a bit thick to complain about everyone else.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (32438)	2/6/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Because Porter is a partner at the firm where Starr worked until he took a leave of absence last August, any role played by Porter in the Jones case could have posed a conflict of interest for Starr once he became independent counsel. Starr has said he did not discuss the Jones case with Porter. The most honest and revealing response to any of this that I've heard from the talking heads of the right, was Ann Coulter's response on the Geraldo Show to questions about Starr's apparent conflict of interest in working with the P.Jones defense team: (paraphrasing from memory) "What's the conflict? Ken Starr was trying to get Clinton and the P.Jone's lawyers were trying to get Clinton? Why shouldn't Starr work with them?" You have to admit, it has a certain logic. Note: When right-wingers use the court system for Clinton-hunting, a certain amount of "accidental" cooperation is allowed without crossing the line into "conspiracy" territory; they don't care for that word, and who can blame them?