JS>Right now it's doubtful that he'll lose even another night's sleep, muc
JS>less their support. Judge Wright gave what I consider one of the most 
JS>ridiculous rulings to come down the pike in some time. Lewinsky and her
JS>role in the White House affairs (read that as Affairs of State) is OUT 
JS>the Jones trial. So is Slick's deposition as it relates to her. 
 
      This may actually prove benificial to Judge Starr's investigation
however.  Rather than witnesses being called prematurely and placed in
a position later to defend previous testimony in the Jones case, as
with Lewinski, Judge Starr can now depose these witnesses in an orderly
and calculated fashion thereby tying each withness to the events and
facts acculmuated bringing out even more of the truth.
      While those working with Jones in the civil case are, I am sure,
upset by this ruling, I imagine those working with Judge Starr in the
criminal investigation are probably just as elated.
JS>However, I just had a thought. IF the attorneys for Jones could get Duf
JS>to state under oath he never had an affair in the White House,or that h
JS>never abused his official position to entice a woman to have sex or ora
JS>"relations" with him,  could they call Lewinsky for no other reason tha
JS>impeach (love that word) Clinton's credibility?
 
        I think they (Starr) can, and probably will, if the
investigation goes that far.  We aren't privy, at this point, to the
full testimony of Clinton in the Jones case, but once these proceedings
are over, and possibly even before, that testimony will be subject to
being aquired by Judge Starr.  Clinton could very well have already
made such statements and now be in a position when he may have to
defend them before another Grand Jury considering criminal charges.
JS>The thrust (no pun here) of the Jones lawsuit is that Clinton routinely
JS>repeatedly used his position as Governor of Arkansas to entice women to
JS>have relations with him. That he would use State Troopers to procure fo
JS>him "eligible women". If they can show that this behavior has continued
JS>into the Presidency, and he denies it, then I believe they can back doo
JS>her testimony into the trial. After all, the Willey affair is still 
JS>admissible. 
 
      That may be true, but I really think pressure will be present in
the Jones case, from all sides except Jone's own attornies, to keep the
cases separated.  I know Judge Starr will be working to minimize probes
into the areas he is working in.
JS>The premise that I believe the judge used was that the affair between 
JS>Clinton and Lewinsky was long standing and not a one time encounter as 
JS>in the case with Jones and Willey. 
JS>Time will tell.
  
      All I heard was the while revelent, the Lewinski affair was not
"essential" to the Paula Jones case...whatever that means. 
 
                                          /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------