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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LesX who wrote (125)	8/19/1998 11:50:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Its not a question of perjury its a question of whether this investigation was even appropriate. You really don't know what the Justice Dept is, do you? It's not a popularity contest being run by Janet Reno, political appointee of President Clinton. The Justice Dept happens to be one of three branches of government in the United States, as defined in our Constitution. It's a machine, designed to emotionlessly and relentlessly pursue truth and justice. The Justice Dept simply enforce laws which are passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President gasp yes it's true. I don't recall Clinton suggesting to Congress that they repeal the perjury laws. So it's just a question for Justice: Did he or did he not commit one or more felonies? That's the only question for them. The Justice Dept must relentlessly pursue the investigation until the presiding three-judge panel decides there is nothing there, or until the machinery completes it's assigned tasks. Again, we all know the steps in Presidential investigations: Grand Jury, three-judge panel, lead investigator, report to Congress, and if necessary, impeachment trial by the Senate. It is a question of perjury and obstruction of justice, no matter how poor Bill's feelings would have been hurt by admitting guilt back when he was asked by the Jones court.