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: Sam who wrote (12679)	4/2/1998 1:20:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

I believe the reason Oliver North wasn't punished had to do with being given immunity. Just like Ken Starr was willing to grant immunity from prosecution to Monica Lewinsky for testifying truthfully before the Grand Jury. As far as your comments regarding Presidents lying, as Oliver North stated in his testimony, there are lies and there are lives....Nobody expects our leaders to be completely forth coming when it comes to matters of state. Clinton's alleged perjury is related to Bill Clinton, American Citizen, lying under oath in a criminal investigation. Trying to hide behind the Presidential veil has already been pierced by our Supreme Court, 9-0. When citizen Clinton goes to testify under oath, if he lies, he has committed perjury and should be prosecuted for it. His standing as President does not (should not) insulate him from any possible legal repercussions if he had committed a criminal act.

To: Sam who wrote (12679)	4/2/1998 1:31:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 20981

The concept that lying under oath is wrong is something even a child can understand but that doesn't make it childish.

To: Sam who wrote (12679)	4/2/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: halfscot	Respond to of 20981

Presidents have routinely lied to everyone throughout US history over matters far more consequential than this, and somehow the Republic has continued. Maybe in speeches, etc. but not under oath. There's a big difference unless you believe your side can do no wrong. Am I wrong or isn't Clinton the first president to be deposed under oath? If he wasn't the first then surely there hasn't been that many times any president has been asked to testify under oath. He lied under oath, plain and simple, which will be revealed in detail when Judge Starr releases his investigation. As pointed out by others there's the issue of abuse of power as well. True, abuses of power have been practiced by Republicans too but not so wantonly and as brazen as this president. Just consider the people and organizations that are recently being audited by the IRS who are not in the president's favor. It goes on and on and more and more will eventually come out. Clinton can be very thankful our economy is robust, otherwise he would be in deep doodoo. halfscot