Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
Was the answer relevant? I'm betting not.
|
Yes. You ask witnesses where they live so you can subpoena them at trial. My point is that in much of law practice, you can find ways to strike a compromise so that each side gets what they need. I think I offered to accept the subpoena for the witness. In Clinton's case, they were trying to embarrass him and harm his presidency. Which is why Spanky thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong. (Although I tend to disagree. I think the judge should have kept the plaintiff on a much shorter leash.)
Quote:
|
Who invented the special prosecutor law? As Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton says, "you reap what you sow".
|
I think we can thank Nixon for that. And it was charmingly principled for Republicans who objected to the law when it was used against Ted Olson to use it to the hilt against Clinton. I'm glad taxpayers paid for Brett Kavanaugh to write the Starr Report, although I think private industry generally does a better job generating soft porn.
Quote:
|
And again, for the non-litigator, I ask, assuming a suit that survives a motion to dismiss and a question that is relevant is there something in the law that let's a defendant being sued lie, if they feel the deposing party is harassing them?
|
If you think I'm going to say anything but "no," you haven't been paying attention.
Quote:
|
I didn't say people get prosecuted for perjury in similar cases all the time and burger didn't ask me if it was common. He asked if "someone", an individual would be similarly prosecuted. the answer is yes.
|
The phrase "would be" implies something about probability, and no one thinks that what Ken Starr et al. did in pursuing Clinton is what any other target of an investigation would have to face.
