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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (1643)	7/15/2005 9:31:43 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542106

Well, that all makes sense, except the parts about Clinton and Rove. Clinton's legal problem was perjury and obstruction, not a personal misconduct. Perjury and obstruction of justice by a President has a heavy bearing on the rule of law, which is what he is sworn to uphold and enforce. And whether Rove committed professional misconduct has not been determined yet. Although at this point it is pretty clear he didn't reveal a name or intentionally out an alleged covert agent.

To: thames_sider who wrote (1643)	7/15/2005 5:45:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542106

Playing around with a willing intern at work is personal misconduct. In many jobs it might get you reprimanded or fired but it will not normally result in legal action against you. (Sexual harassment charges are possible but shouldn't stick if it was all willing, public indecency charges could also happen, but with Clinton even if it was at work it wasn't on public display so that type of charge wouldn't fit his case). OTOH lying under oath about playing around with a willing partner is perjury and clearly illegal. It is rather interesting that Clinton himself signed the law that allowed the issue that he lied about to be raised in the sexual harassment suit. What Rove did isn't clearly illegal. The worst spin on the worst possibility would be that it was illegal and damaging and maybe even treasonous, but apparently Palme was not working under cover at the time of the revelation and had not been doing so for years. Considering that fact, "treasonous" and "highly damaging" seem to be eliminated, and "illegal" becomes rather questionable, "improper" would still seem to be appropriate. Tim