Doug - **OT** - Tsk, tsk tsk. Letting your partisanship show:
Despite the best efforts of the most partisan, vindictive and one sided Special Prosecutor ever.
Ok, for the sake of devil's advocacy, I'll try the other side. At this point Clinton, who is obviously a man for whom the truth is elusive, has two more years in his presidency. Were I in Congress I wouldn't trust anything he said, especially were I one of the congressmen made recently famous for their well timed phone conversations. Maybe it would be different if he had either:
a) Told the truth before the grand jury or the american people about his lying under oath. Instead he continues to maintain that he told the legal truth - 'the only contact he had was the famous mouth contact'. Uh huh! This just emphasizes that he only tells the truth when he knows he has no choice (either a tape or DNA).
b) Not dragged down his whole cabinet with him. Did you read the Currie stuff? Although she did her best to 'hear no evil, see no evil, ...' she still had to set up his dates and fetch his girlfriend, and she obviously was very uncomfortable about it. That's just scummy. Although not strictly speaking impeachable, it would certainly influence my ability to work with the man were I on his cabinet.
c) Not changed his whole attitude about the scandal as soon as he has access to his speech writers again. Before hand he is not apologetic but mad, afterwards he is deeply apologetic. Which do you believe?
The problem I see is not whether the crime is a big one, but whether the crime in conjunction with his attitude is enough to make him completely ineffective in his presidency.
Clark
PS Since this is a financial forum, is there anyone here who really believes that Hillary Clinton really turned $1000 into $100,000 (via multiple back-to-back trades) in her first, and only, venture into the futures market? If you made that kind of return on your first attempt would you stop? Do you know anyone who a) could do it, b) would stop having once done it and lost nothing? |
