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: Doughboy who wrote (3002)	8/25/1998 12:15:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

but how could expressing these concerns about the report and raising the bar on Starr be anything but trouble to Starr and the House investigation? That's what nobody on this thread as explained yet. Humor me for a moment, while I attempt to do that: 1) As you yourself have emphasized, Newt "raised the bar" for an impeachment panel to hop over. 2) "Multiple felonies" may not turn out to be very difficult to show: a) In the Jones deposition, Clinton himself read aloud Lewinsky's affidavit, which said, "I did not have an extramarital sexual affair with President Clinton". After reading it, Clinton said, "Yes, that's the truth". Now call me biased, but that looks like lying under oath to me. Keep in mind that perjury law fine print doesn't say "Perjury shall be defined as lying under oath, except in the case of lying about illicit sexual dalliances between Presidents and 21 year-old interns". So, this and other statements in the Jones deposition, taken under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God". b) It is still unclear just who told Betty Currie to call Lewinsky on the telephone and say "I hear you have some things for me to pick up". After which Mrs. Currie promply drove over to Lewinsky's apartment and retrieved personal gifts given to Lewinsky by Pres. Clinton, which were at that moment on list of items being sought as evidence by the Jones' legal team. Hiding evidence is "a classic form of Obstruction of Justice", said a D.C. judge recently. It is unknown right now exactly what Betty Currie has told the Grand Jury, in re just who told her to retrieve the gifts. As President Clinton's personal executive secretary, if anyone besides Clinton himself were going to retrieve the gifts, the logical choice would be his executive secretary. And she indeed was the one who personally retrieved the gifts. Obstruction of Justice = potential felony number two. Two felonies = multiple felonies. And now remember that in the public's mind, Newt (who will not be the head of the team pouring over Starr's report. That honor will be given to Henry Hyde) has "raised the bar" previously, which may indeed be hopped over quite effortlessly.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3002)	8/25/1998 3:17:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<I agree that by keeping his mouth shut Newt would benefit politically, but how could expressing these concerns about the report and raising the bar on Starr be anything but trouble to Starr and the House investigation? That's what nobody on this thread as explained yet. >>> Uhh...Duhhh...geee George I dun know. Could Mr. Newt uh maybe uh uh know wuz in duh report?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3002)	8/25/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 13994

<<how could expressing these concerns about the report and raising the bar on Starr be anything but trouble to Starr and the House investigation>> We must have heard different speeches by Gingrich. I don't remember him expressing any concerns about the report. If we assume for the sake of this discussion that Gingrich is relatively certain that the report will show the pattern of felonies he said would be needed for impeachment, he can get on TV later and "reluctantly" call for the impeachment of the President. It would then appear that he wasn't a wild-eyed right-wing gun-toting militia-type eager for Democrat blood, but a seasoned, reasonable, cares-about-America, should-be-reelected, maybe-even-Presidential, politician. I also don't see the speech as raising the bar, but an admission of reality. The President won't be removed from office until the American people want him gone. So far (assuming the polls are correct), that would require more than the sex/lying scandal.