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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1480)	8/17/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Lying on TV's one thing, in a judicial proceeding its something else(perjury). His semantic argument doesn't hold any water. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1480)	8/17/1998 5:15:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 13994

There is no question that Clinton perjured himself in his Paula Jones deposition according to the "legal" definition of sex if he admits to his affair with Lewinsky. You are simply falling victim to the political trial balloons that are being floated over the past few days to determine whether Clinton can use that ploy with the public after he is forced by the evidence to testify that he lied in the deposition. He has been put on notice by the Congressional leadership that if he persists in lying about the matter, he will suffer consequences that will imperil the remainder of his presidency. That is what I meant by his only escape is a political one. Even that is tenuous at best. If he tries the "interpretation" of what constituted sex ploy, his poll numbers will plummet. You could file that under the "adding insult to injury" category. bp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1480)	8/17/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>his main concern was to protect Monica and his family<< Oh really? I think it was more an attempt to protect his own sorry ass. Remember he talked with Monica on Dec. 28 well before her questioning for her affidavit for the Paula Jones case. He obviously knew the facts, if he were so concerned about Monica and his family, wouldn't he simply go to Hillary and tell her about the affair before Lewinsky was deposed? Knowing full well that the gifts were out there and that he left messages on her answering machine, in other words, plenty of potentially damning evidence of a relationship? Wouldn't he do the right thing by Monica and instruct her to tell the truth if questioned about their relationship, instead of putting her in further jeopardy legally? Certainly does not sound like he took any steps to protect anyone in this situation but himself..... bp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1480)	8/17/1998 8:56:00 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Your prediction is probably as close to what will happen as anything. The semantics game and a claim to the honorable(i.e., protecting others) is about the only way he can face the public and actually say something without really admitting the most damaging aspects of the problem. For my part, I focus on his lack of judgment and refuse to be embroiled in arguments about morality, legality, and protecting one's family and lover from public scandal by lying. Apparently Mr. Clinton has no judgment in his personal life and, worse yet, allows that poor judgment to spill over into his professional life. In the environment of the '90's chief executives of corporations, and this country, display absolutely no sense if they get themselves involved with subordinates in this way. We are a National Enquirer society with sex harassment cases making headlines all over the place. Servicemen and women are losing their careers over these indiscretions. It's not a secret that this type of behavior, even between consenting adults at the outset, could easily turn to disaster. For someone like Clinton to philander with a very young subordinate, knowing these rules and the environment, suggests extremely poor judgment and/or just plain arrogance. Neither quality is desirable for the leader of the free world, IMHO.