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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (149815)	8/16/2002 1:30:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575074

The concept of evaluating and grading someone's lying ability has a specious quality to it. What's the point? If someone is a good liar you have to be more careful when dealing with them or evaluating them because if your not careful they will get away with the lie and you wont realize you have been had. Clinton was committing perjury about adultery. I don't care.......a Grand Jury was called up thanks to the absurdity of partisan politics. The fact that the grand jury was created for a case like this might be absurd, but the absurdity was Clinton's own. He signed the sexual harrassment law that enabled the grand jury to be brought against him in this case. In any case its still purjury. If it was a bad law the law should be changed. I might support the change, but once a legal case starts and the witness is sworn in lies become perjury. Clinton could have refused to testify (which would have made for an interesting contempt of court case), but he didn't say "this is rediculous and I won't testify", and he didn't stand on his rights under the 5th ammendment, he just went ahead and glibly lied while under oath. And don't tell me that Reps. don't commit adultery. The case was never about adultery. The impeachment was about perjury. The grand jury investigation was about sexual harassment. Republicans have been slammed with sexual harassment charges as well. If it can be shown that they lied under oath when defending themselves from the charges then they are also guilty of perjury and are not better then Clinton in this regard. If he was not involved, why did he try to cover it up. Because people close to him were involved and the whole thing would be very embarassing if it got out. Also because he was a bit paranoid. However, you do agree that at a minimum he was guilty of obstruction of justice. Yet, you see that as a lesser crime because Clinton lied about an adulterous affair under oath. Who said it was a lesser crime? I just said the lie was not as bad. The obstruction of justice was not a lie, but rather trying to bury or divert the investigation. Also its important to note that Nixon resigned after he lied and commited crimes and was caught. Clinton did not. there were only two crimes........the break in of Dem. offices and Nixon's attempt to cover it up. Talk of Clinton's lying is much to do about nothing and has more to do with partisan politics than reality. Even just the lying is a bad thing, although he shares that with probably 95% of politicians. But lying under oath is perjury and that is a crime. Also there are other crimes that it appears Clinton may be guilty of but where the evidence is not as solid. If your going to count the break in then you should count the crimes that Clinton may have been involved in as well. Even if you don't count the crimes, perjury is a crime its not just lying. Tim