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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8674)	2/27/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 20981

Hmmm.....What I wonder specifically is why Clinton didn't agree to answer questions about Jones but not about any other woman/women. The worst that could have happened is that he could eventually have been held in contempt of court. I think I follow. Is this right: You think Clinton should agree to answer questions about Jones, but not agree to answer questions about any other women. So then the worse that could happen is he could be held in contempt. He couldn't have taken the fifth because he wasn't in danger of incriminating himself, as his relations--if any--with Lewinsky did not constitute a crime. I see. I wasn't real clear on the absolutes about taking the fifth [no pun intended]. I was under the impression that one could take the fifth anytime, unless the judge deemed it important that you say what you know. Thanks for clearing that up. Re But my understanding is that the questions about Lewinsky came as a complete surprise to Clinton, and that the specificity of those questions surprised him even more. So he was rattled. I see. When the President gets rattled, his first instinct is to fire off a lie or two. Hmmmm.. Re >I think this is an unfortunate political habit. They become accustomed early on to saying different things to different constituencies, to making promises they know perfectly well they'll never act on. What really counts is telling whomever your talking to what he wants to hear. Otherwise your chances of getting elected are not terrific. Somewhere along the way, not astonishingly, the difference between lies and truth becomes blurred. I don't condone this, much less approve it, but taht's politics.< Surely you're not comparing filing a false affidavit to a court of law with a TV campaign ad are you? The two are complete different animals. Janice, I agree that sometimes (often times) politicians have difficulty living up to their campaign "promises". Everyone knows that there may be insurmountable obstacles. But let's be clear here: Clinton is not a candidate, he's the President, and there is a BIG difference. The "truth in advertising" laws don't pertain to political candidates, but not even political candidates are free to file false affidavits to courts that are pursuing charges against them. This cannot be brushed off as some kind of broken campaign promise, if that's what you're getting at.