Ed Mahmoud wrote: Terrell wrote:A larger question for me is should the courts be able to make a person testify against themselves in a civil case? Or should the courts be allowed to question you under oath about your sex life? I would tend to say no.
The mayor fired some police officers who were asking uncomfortable questions about his use of city security for his affair with his chief of staff. The fired cops sued, and the love affair was a key component of their case, that they were fired for asking questions. If you rule out questions about the affair, the cops have no case.
They would have to find another way to confirm or refute the affair. If it were a criminal case, ie corruption, they would not be allowed to ask the mayor whether or not he was having an affair because no one can be compelled to testify against themselves under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. I think that right against self-incrimination should be extended to the civil courts as well especially since a large judgement can ruin someone almost as much as a criminal conviction. I would say that the plaintiff's attorneys should be able to subpeona records, DNA, and have many of the powers that a prosecutor would have, but they should not IMO be able to compel the defendant's testimony whether in depositions (which can easily be legal fishing expeditions) or at trial.
Ed Mahmoud wrote:Just like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing, if the mayor had told the truth under oath, while hurting his chances in a civil law suit, he would have faced no criminal jeopardy. Clinton broke no laws getting some from a legal aged adult intern. He never would have had to answer questions about that, except he was being sued for sexual harassment of an Arkansas state employee, and the plaintiffs were trying to establish a pattern of Clinton's sexual escapades with government employees. The judge in the case ruled that the line of questions was appropriate. Under oath, he admitted the long denied affair with Gennifer Flowers, because she had taped certain phone calls where he had discussed their sexual relationship. He lied about the Lewinsky matter, because he had no way of guessing that Monica would save a stained blue dress as a souvenir, which the FBI would eventually test and prove that it was his DNA. But the sex, that broke no laws.
The problem with the Lewinsky matter though is I don't buy the basic premise that having a consensual affair with a subordinate, especially in the case where the subordinate initiates said affair, really proves whether or not he did anything with Ms. Jones that she didn't want. It was also possible to prove the Clinton/Lewinsky thing independent of requiring either of them to testify against themselves. There's no B there to get me between the A of he was with Monica to the C of he must have harrassed Paula those things can be done independent of each other, and are not conditional on one another. IOW, I think it's a BS law that allows that line of questioning, the plaintiff should be allowed to investigate, but he shouldn't be allowed to compel the defendant to help him beyond documents and DNA.
Ed Mahmoud wrote: If text messages sent on city owned cell phones and pagers hadn't been discovered, the lies while under oath never would have been discovered. If the mayor hadn't fired the cops, there never would have been a lawsuit.
Never the initial mistake, always the coverup.
If they were able to determine the mayor had an affair from the text message records, why did they need to force him to testify against himself? My issue w/r/t this specific case is making someone testify against themself.
Ed Mahmoud wrote:
Nixon didn't know in advance about Watergate, and, in fact, he won the '72 race over McGovern by a landslide. If he had told what he knew as soon as he found out, he never would have faced impeachment and been forced to resign. But he found out after the fact, and tried to cover it up.
There is a lesson there.
Wasn't nixon doing things a bit worse than lying under oath about an affair? Not to mention there was no allegation of perjury against him, though there was obstruction of justice.
