From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:16:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton still doesnt get it
Message-ID: <199809162017.WAA32443@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Anonymous writes:
> 
> Frondeur writes:
> 
> > Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems?
> 
> Watch TV and learn the answer.  It's only perjury if it's material,
> and the judge said it wasn't material.

This doesn't speak to `reasonable doubt' which was the subject
under discussion.  Or are you arguing that a defense to perjury
is that there is reasonable doubt that a question was material?
Go watch TV and report back with the answer.


> > And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer.  But
> > where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in?  I don't see
> > that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment.
> 
> Among the grounds Starr listed was Clinton's attempt to delay the
> investigation by raising many legal objections. He claimed privilege,
> for example, with respect to Secret Service testimony.  Most of his
> efforts were ultimately overruled.

Yes, but I assumed Mac had included this under the `abuse of power'
heading since he explicitly cited that topic in his message to which
I was responding, and since that appeared to match one of the broad
headings under which Starr classifies his possible `grounds for
impeachment':

    "...that President Clinton's actions ... have been inconsistent 
    with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute 
    the laws. "

I see nowhere that Starr claims that it was illegal/impeachable for
Clinton to have claimed executive privilege.  He merely notes that
Clinton used it (extensively) along with a bunch of other tactics to
delay and impede the investigation.

 - Frondeur