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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (1626)	5/28/2003 11:37:35 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

As I said the fact that a major character flaw is overlooked by people says more about the people who overlook it than it does about the man. Same thing applies to Rudy. It was not wrong to make Clinton testify at all. He is not above the Law. He lied under oath and got caught demonstrating his contempt for the very system of Law he swore to uphold. As I said that's hardly surprising for someone who holds his marital vows in such contempt. At best the case should have been set aside until he was no longer in office. I suspect your tune would change if it had been your wife or your daughter who had been sexually harassed. The Lewinsky thing presumably involved mutual consent. The other charges were much more serious. It's fascinating to see feminists and "moderates" come to the defence of what they themselves would label despicable behavior just because they happen to agree with the man's policies in other areas. Talk about selling yourself for a mess of potage. Have you no shame?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (1626)	5/28/2003 8:41:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

What he did with his private life was never anyone else's business. It was wrong to make him testify in the first place. He should have told them to ** off when he was first questioned. You may be right about that, although keep in mind that the activities he claimed were private were done in his public office while he was performing public business. So it's not clear whether they really should be considered private or not. And if you look at the way the public has intruded without any hesitancy into other areas that really should be private -- isn't Wilbur Mills plunging into the Tidal pool really a private matter? -- nonetheless, once he chose not to take your advice but to go ahead and testify under oath, he had the obligation, IMO, to do so truthfully. My main complaint, as an attorney, is that as the head of the Department of Justice he is the nation's top lawyer. If the nation's top lawyer doesn't evidence respect for the oath of evidence, a major assumption of our system of justice is at risk. If he had indeed said "* off, I'm not discussing my private life," I could have respected him. But once he chose to testify under oath, as the chief legal executive for the nation he had an obligation, IMO, to demonstrate the utmost respect for our legal processes.