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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19586)	8/21/2002 11:07:35 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

In this particular case, my distaste at seeing a President lie under oath is balanced by my equal distaste at seeing the justice system twisted by placing a person under oath to get answers to stupid, irrelevant questions of the sort that belong in tabloid journalism, not an official investigation. The sooner the whole episode is forgotten the happier I'll be. Both sides came out looking petty and idiotic.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19586)	8/21/2002 11:11:06 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That's the difference between laws and justice. Most trials involve some discrepency in testimony. I gather you are argueing that each of these should be followed by a perjury trial? This case against Clinton was no more relevant than if Starr had prosecuted Clinton for jaywalking if he crossed the street to shake a hand. go to jail due to the false testimony I cannot imagine a case where my freedom hinged on how much detail someone had to give on their sex life with someone else I didn't know. TP