Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jlallen who wrote (5231)	9/24/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) of 67261

JLA, that is utterly disingenuous. To be charitable. The quotes I cited from the Washington post make an absolute mockery of the those who attacked Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. That supposedly common sense absurdity is FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE LEADING CASE ON THE SUBJECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN THIS LAND. Not obliquely. Not by some strained inference, but directly. On all fours. You are not dealing here with some citations to some cases. You are dealing with a dead on point decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which they have not since overturned, or contradicted. Deal with it. It is the law of the land on the subject of whether intentionally misleading testimony constitues perjury, if it is narrowly accurate. (It doesn't.) exchange2000.com Under the standards LAID DOWN by the Supreme Court in that case, there is very little room for establishing that Clinton committed purjuy in the civil deposition. It comes down I think exclusively to the touching of breasts and genitalia, not through clothing, and not with a cigar, but flesh on flesh. And is there sufficient evidence to establish a crime? Much less a high crime? Looks a looser in a court. Doug

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next