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 : President Clinton: Leader? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: posthumousone who wrote (171)	4/4/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206

<< The case never went to court so therefore he tehcnically never committed perjury? >> The Republican Congress just funded another $1.5 million in tax payer money, so Kenneth Starr could continue on his mission against the President. $40 million blown without any known, substantial proof of wrong-doing. Oh well, I guess that is more important than health care, Social Security, etc. If you'll remember, the Republican led congress has already shut down our country, once, before they threw in the towel, and admitted that President Clinton was correct, and then implemented his programs. I don't think that the perjury charges will be dropped, even though they probably would be dropped against any other U.S. Citizen. I feel that they want to stop President Clinton from doing his job, because he is doing it too well, despite the additional stress and time taken by partisan attacks. We are witnessing some very dirty, and mean spirited, political attacks, which are done regardless of potential damage to our country and families. Regards, Bob

To: posthumousone who wrote (171)	4/6/1998 9:55:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 206

If Mr. Clinton lied under oath at any stage in any judicial proceeding, it is perjury whether the case went to the jury or not. If Mr. Clinton conspired with others and/or encouraged other to lie in any judicial proceeding, whether or not the case went to a jury that is subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. If that is in fact what happened, who can say whether there might not have been more on the table for the judge to look at and determine that the case should have gone to a jury? In any event, I think Ms. Jones "case" was extremely weak from a legal point of view (although I believe here version of the facts) but irrespective of the legal merits, perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice can not be excused (if proven) merely because this case did not get to a jury. JLA