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: carranza2 who wrote (16232)	4/6/2006 2:21:30 PM
From: Suma	Respond to of 543487

From a practical standpoint, how are they going to prove a Bush connection? I see some huge hearsay problems if there are no documents, which probably don't exist if Bush is responsible. No paper trail for this kind of stuff, no sir. Can see your point. However, UNDER OATH is still supposed to carry some weight.. I would think most Americans would agree with that....However maybe the President does cannot be required to be under oath ? THere are many instances in our political history where there was only denial with no substantiated proof. Let's see with Clinton wasn't it the blue dress.?? <g>