MM>Seems that Starr is planning on showing a pattern of illegalities, t
MM>If that's the case, Clinton will be nailed for much more than simply
MM>perjury.
The latest news is that the judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit has excluded 
any and all evidence relating to Monica Lewinsky, and any reference to her 
in the trial.
The left leaning legal pundits, led by Geraldo Rivera, are elatedly 
claiming a Clinton victory for, get this, the rationale that now since no 
mention of Monica Lewinsky can be made in the Jones trial, her deposition 
and that of Clinton, are not perjurious because they are no longer 
relevant. Since they are no longer relevant, they are no longer material. 
Since they are no longer material, then their lies are not perjury since 
the statute requires that the lie be relevant to the proceeding at hand.
To take it to it's ultimate ridiculous conclusion, if such a theory was 
valid then the following scenario would be played out in courtrooms around 
the country:
A lies in Grand Jury proceedings. 
B is indicted as a result of A's perjured testimony.
A's Grand Jury testimony is proven to be perjurious and he is indicted.
B's charges are dismissed because of this. As a result, A could argue that 
he didn't really perjure himself since the charges for which his perjured 
testimony was given are dismissed and his previously given testimony is no 
longer material since the charges against B have been dismissed.
Take it one step further.
A gives perjured Grand Jury testimony as above.
B is indicted based on A's testimony.
B goes to trial.
A testifies again perjuriously. 
B is found not guilty.
A's testimony is found to be perjurious.
A asserts the defense that it's not perjury because his testimony is no 
longer relevant since B was found not guilty and therefore his testimony is 
not material because the proceedings in which he perjured himself are no 
longer pending.
A law professor argued, and I agree, that at the time the deposition was 
given by Clinton, it WAS material and relevant. When Lewinsky gave her 
written statement under oath, it WAS relevant and thereby material. 
But the lovely LIbEralS are claiming victory once again. Go figure. 
Shouldn't surprise us one bit. 
John 
 "To find reasonable doubt, one must first be capable of reason."
___
 * WR 1.33 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------