Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: Ilaine who wrote (126687)	2/12/2001 6:40:28 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 769667

You nailed it down.

To: Ilaine who wrote (126687)	2/12/2001 6:51:05 PM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

"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." I did not see this statement before today, do you have an online source for it? 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. That is true enough, but that isn't the point I was making, nor the point I was addressing. The point I was making was that the agreement was not that he couldn't practice law anywhere but, rather, that he agreed to a 5 year suspension of privileges in Arkansas. Yes, he does not now have an active license, but as nearly as I know, he is not prohibited specifically by the agreement from trying to get one somewhere else. I don't think any US Jurisdiction will allow him to get one while under suspension, but then again, I used to think the Supreme Court was fair and above politics, so I guess anything is possible.

To: Ilaine who wrote (126687)	2/12/2001 10:35:54 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

CobaltBlue your conclusion. >>>Let's see, what do you call false statements made under oath while a defendant in a legal proceeding? which is a question of this statement. >> 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.<< putting my mind into vacant liberal thinking mode I would have to say this to defend VLM TimbaBear Just because some one makes a false statement does not mean that they are lying. Not telling the truth is lying. But telling a falsehood is not lying. The logic is simple. False is not not true and of course the Pope is not Catholic and bears do use the toilet at 7-11 stores. Now I hope you see the logic of my vacant liberal mind. there.... ToM Watson tosiwmee