JS>The latest news is that the judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit has exclud
JS>any and all evidence relating to Monica Lewinsky, and any reference to 
JS>in the trial.
 
     That will probably, in the long run, prove to be of benefit to the
investigation Judge Starr is conducting.  If witnesses in the
allegations of criminal activity on the part of the President were made
to prematurely give testimony in the Paula Jones case they might be
tempted to make false or misleading statements that would have to be
defended later, much as Lewinski herself may have done.  By removing
the requirement they appear before a court in the Paula Jones case
Judge Starr is now free to accumulate the facts in his investigation
and depose these witnesses in an orderly manner.  
JS>The left leaning legal pundits, led by Geraldo Rivera, are elatedly 
JS>claiming a Clinton victory for, get this, the rationale that now since 
JS>mention of Monica Lewinsky can be made in the Jones trial, her depositi
JS>and that of Clinton, are not perjurious because they are no longer 
JS>relevant. Since they are no longer relevant, they are no longer materia
JS>Since they are no longer material, then their lies are not perjury sinc
JS>the statute requires that the lie be relevant to the proceeding at hand
 
     In the short term this can be partially viewed as a Clinton
victory, but in the long term, if the President is guilty of the
allegations, I think we are going to see this decision as having been a
key to bringing out the truth in the case.
 
  
                                            /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------