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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimbaBear who wrote (126683)2/12/2001 6:18:42 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769667
 
1. You can't practice law without a license, and Clinton doesn't have a license to practice law. Anywhere. He can't waive into practice without being licensed somewhere, and he's not.

2. Clinton said that he made FALSE statements in the Jones case. "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."

3. >>no statement he made under oath at court has been proven to be perjurious, or they would not have acquitted him in the impeachment trial at the Senate.<<

Let's see, what do you call false statements made under oath while a defendant in a legal proceeding?



To: TimbaBear who wrote (126683)2/12/2001 6:26:23 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Oh, yeah, I forgot, Clinton was fined $90,000 by the judge in Arkansas for contempt of court for his acts in the Jones case.

foxnews.com



To: TimbaBear who wrote (126683)2/12/2001 6:57:41 PM
From: dave rose  Respond to of 769667
 
<<<No, he didn't apologize for perjury, he apologized for making misleading statements....big difference>>

How is that for a liberal splitting hairs? on my next tax audit I will use that method of defense. Misleading statements----hmmmmmm



To: TimbaBear who wrote (126683)2/12/2001 8:57:23 PM
From: George Coyne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
but no statement he made under oath
at court has been proven to be perjurious, or they would not have acquitted
him in the impeachment trial at the Senate.


You've got to be joking! The senate trial was a farce, with none of the relevant evidence and witnesses allowed. He was acquitted because too many Rep. senators had no balls.