Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.)
|
Okay, just I am clear, how does any of that justify perjury?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
|
Martha Stewart?
Being a public figure has benefits and it has drawbacks. If you go in to politics I think you assume a risk. It gets us back to the character issue and why it's relevant. In today's society if you want to be in politics, and especially at the national level, you have to be clean or expect that you can justify your skeletons. Clinton knew the game and he knew the rules. If Starr did anything but follow the letter of the law in carrying out his duty then he should have been brought to task appropriately. If he was abusing process then Clinton should have raised that issue (I forget did he bring a motion regarding prosecutorial abuse?).
Or following the whole debacle Clinton, in a nod to the injustice visited upon him, should lobby for a revision to certain statutes to allow perjury if the defendant feels "harassed".
