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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: American Spirit who wrote (8538)5/16/2006 10:24:06 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Clinton lied under oath in a civil case. I think that there are probably to many lawsuits in this country. It can be argued about whether or not this particular one had any merit. If what the plaintiff said happened actually did than the lawsuit had merit, if it was a fabrication supported by perjury then it was wrong. Either way once he was in the lawsuit it was both wrong and illegal for Clinton to perjure himself.

How'd you like Bush to be investigated for Harken Energy insider trading, at a cost of 80 million to taxpayers, then grilled under oath about his affair with Tammi the Houston stripper and charged with perjury for denying it? Same thing. What's the difference?

Big difference. Sexual conduct with other people might be considered relevant in a sexual harassment case, and was considered relevant under the law Clinton signed. Any alleged affair with a stripper is probably not relevant to an alleged insider trading scheme. There is no way to reasonably consider it relevant (unless a stripper was part of some scheme or a witness to it), and there is no law that says it should generally be considered relevant. There certainly is no law saying such a thing that was supported by and signed by Bush.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext