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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (34592)	2/20/1999 6:47:00 AM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

JP---I doubt you understand my argument at all. So, taking the events, can we see where we differ, maybe then we can see whether the facts support your version or mine or what. I hope my structure and abbreviations can be deciphered w/o much difficulty. [m=MacCoy. j=Johannes. ?...? = tentative, worth exploring. test.=testimony.] -PJ team makes accusation. m: ?acc. is bogus--Jones coached beyond facts? m: ?acc. is bogus--PJ team Not seeking redress, but using Law as political weapon. Discovery, not verdict, their object? j: fair acc. -Accusation accepted. m: ?judge misled to acc. legit? m: ?judge makes bad call--it was later tossed? j: deserves full hearing. Discovery: -Non-Lew Test. & Evid discovered. -Lew Test. discovered m: Lew. test. of questionable relevance. No relevance till supported. m: ?test. should have been separated into relevant & not relevant? m: separation not standard court procedure. m: ?avenue of abuse of court power versus individual power/right? m: Exploration and elaboration possible here; this only one extemporaneous example. j: Court can ask whatever it pleases, however, whenever, whoever. m: Court encounters variations on old circumstances every moment. Most fit the precidents and laws, some don't. Some courts notice; some don't. Most courts will keep the power to themselves. Clinton balks at unsupported questionably relevant testimony. m: ?He is raising a new, not in the statutes objection to court procedures, based on 5,14, 9, 10 Amends.? m: ?He is objecting in an unusual, not in the statutes way, in order not to compromise the objection itself.? m: Questioning the question, with the format of a lie, is not a lie, except in appearance. It is a question, an appeal, without meaning as true or false. j: ? m: He has experience in raising unusual legal objections. j: Pleading the 5th would've been enough. j: He is lying. j: < Your man is a liar and a cheat, a man who assaulted your legal system and society.> Starr m: Starr is let in to determine perjury. He, like you, considers only the appearance, not the substance of the testimony. He should know better, probably does, and has chosen to ignore the [central] issue. Clinton continues "asking for his appeal" with Starr. That lets in the impeachment process. All based on deliberate misunderstandings. j: Starr determines <<lies and obstruction of justice.>> Congress balked. Verdict -Judge Wright considers more deeply and judges the case unproven and the testimony irrelevant. -Starr finds nothing for the PJ team in anything he investigates. m: Nothing to hide; experience protecting his rights; consistency across different venues; legal harassment without the mature legacy of, say, murder: this tempest has been about an appeal, a discrepancy between law and justice, not a lie. j: <<about lying his way to credibility>> Appeals to the legal process will occur until it is perfect. Is it perfect? Will it ever be? As long as permutations of reality and people keep changing, as long as ways exist for the Constitution to clash within itself and with States and with individuals--no end to appeals ever. And some will appear odd.