Re: No smoking gun!!!
Gregory Alan Bolcer (gbolcer@gambetta.ICS.uci.edu)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:24:03 -0700
> Ummm, what does that mean when there is no justice being obstructed?
> Seriously, you generally have to interfere with a criminal inquiry or
> proceedings in order for it to be considered obstruction of justice.
> Refusing to give testimony is not obstruction. Using a lawyer to present
> a challenge to the oversight panel/judge is not obstruction. Oddly
Refusing to turn over documents in one case as he defined
'white house papers' to be his personal papers under one supeona (how
do you spell that stupid word anyways?) and not the official government
papers as the reason why they weren't interpreted to be covered, and
then 'white house papers' to be the official government papers and not his
personal papers in response to another. He explained why he didn't turn one set
over and then an hour later explained why he didn't turn the
other over, and then they asked him why the discrepancy and
he didn't have an answer and changed the subject, attacked the
motive of the questioner. He split hairs over why they weren't turned
over and then contradicted himself in his own testimony, not less than an hour later.
No Starr claims, just Clinton contradicting his own words. That's
the reason I said they had an open and shut case. Thank goodness
I'm not a lawyer, though.
> enough, the 5th amendment does apply to Presidents as well. He didn't
> refuse to give testimony, didn't burn any evidence, and didn't kill
> off any of the witnesses. So it's hard to see what's got your panties
> in a bind there Greg -- too much free time on your hands? ;)
Gawd, I wish! The hypocrisy is annoying.
> An awful lot of people are just taking Starr's claims as verbatim and
> not bothering to think like a Judge. Starr is a prosecutor in this case
> and is applying for the maximum he can obtain without being repremanded
> for harrassment. But they are just claims, not proof, and most would
> just be dismissed by any Judge (including Starr himself). The knot is
> that the normal rules of inquiry do not apply to Congress, so we are
> left with the infamous Judicial Committee of the House to decide what
> should be dismissed or carried forward to vote, and another six months
> of political posturing by both sides regardless of the outcome.
...and based on ancient history and a recent 1994 supreme court ruling,
everything's admissable. Peanuts and popcorn for everyone!