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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (31754)	2/27/1999 7:13:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

First, remember that Clinton is a "public figure" which means anyone, even rich networks, can defame him without risk unless they do so with malice (absence of a shred of proof = malice). Even with malice, Clinton could never sue to protect himself, because the court would undertake to test the truth of the accusation. As it is, (I haven't looked up Arkansas law) the statute of limitations on rape has probably passed (its 6 years in Hawaii but will sooned be lengthened because of a case on the Big Island). The tort limit has also passed (2 years most places). Any public figure can be accused of anything. Anyone can be accused of anything and if the accuser is poor enough (judgment proof) there is no practical way to protect yourself. To deny an allegation is to either perjure yourself or accuse your accuser of perjury. A woman student sued a male assistant professor (of religion at UH) for raping her. He denied the charge and counter-sued her for harassment and defamation. Her former husband testified that she was a bad person. The professor won his defense and several hundred thousand in damages against her (she could not pay). No one went to jail, but at least one of them was a perjurer. Usually, in every case, all parties and witnesses tell lies. A deposing witness is allowed to correct his testimony and avoid charges. A witness on the stand can withdraw an answer and change it. I think telling the truth is wonderful and impossible. If every one who lied was imprisoned (or killed as they used to punish liars -- false witness -- you know) there would be little for us truthful ones to do except work as prison guards for all the Cretans inside.

To: Krowbar who wrote (31754)	2/28/1999 11:31:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

<< think that Ken Starr had an agenda to find any conceivable way to get the president and yet he didn't pursue this lead. I wonder why.>> Starr interviewed Broaddrick and gathered testimony from her corroborating witnesses. It was presented to Congress with all the other evidence, but was not in the Starr report simply because there was no obstruction of justice issue with this witness, because she herself was very reluctant to come forward--none of Clinton's operatives approached her because they realized she was not going to be a problem for them. The statute of limitations on rape has run out in this case, so rather than potential legal action, it is a thing of every citizen being open-minded enough to hear the evidence Broaddrick and her corroborating witnesses are presenting, and deciding for themselves what they think of Bill Clinton now. Frankly, I think it is just very disturbing for everyone who thought this whole thing was a railroading job by Ken Starr to realize that perhaps we do actually have a violent felon in the White House, news which is not any kind of surprise at all to those who really followed this and understand anything at all about the pathology of sexual predators.