SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (149992)8/19/2002 5:00:17 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 1569224
 
but then you add on a twist.......there is a financial liability in question that will effect the well being of ENE's employees.

The only difference is who is to benefit if the plaintiff wins. In the hypothetical, the poor, downtrodden employees of Enron benefit; in the Clinton case, trailer park trash Paula Jones benefits. So, in effect, it is okay to lie if you don't like the plaintiff, but you must be truthful if you do. I think I'm getting the picture.

Clinton lied to protect his marriage; Ken Lay lied to keep from paying out $300 million in pension funds.

Clinton lied to avoid liability in a civil trial, same as Ken Lay in the hypothetical. Your logic just totally breaks down with the mildest of analysis.

While lying is never acceptable, not only do I see the Lay lie as the more serious one but the one that should get the harsher penalty. And that concept of the punishment fitting the crime is very well understood in our judicial system; that two crimes can be very different; that the seriousness of two lies can be different......and therefore, the punishments can be very different.

So far as I'm aware, there is no distinction in the law between Clinton's crime and Lay's hypothetical one. Both are perjury in a civil trial. The law does not say, "Perjury in a civil trial involving former Enron employees shall be a greater offense than is perjury in a crime involving alleged sexual harrassment".

This is to totally disregard the fact that you simply can't have the witness making decisions about when it is or is not allowable to lie -- another separate but major issue.

So, you'll believe what you will -- but if you look at the justice aspects of what transpired you must conclude that Clinton was guilty of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News