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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (738)	8/26/1998 12:28:00 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Dwight, Sheesh. First of all, I dont want to discuss what actually went on in the Oval Office. Is there a real need to do that. 2 people had sexual relations there isnt that enough information for you? Because its enough for me. The point here, is people think that Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica, and for that he should be impeached. Outside of my personal feelings regarding Bill Clintons conduct I will tell you that I dont want a president that is going to behave like spineless wimp just because some voyeuristic prosecutor is poking his nose in someones personal affairs. And with the consequences to the women involved, if Clinton blurbed it all I would have thought much less of him. On that same topic, regarding the inquiry of Monicas mother. If it were me they hauled in that inquiry I would have told Starr to blank off, and that would have been it (probably I would have used more colorful language too just for fun). I would have wound up like Susan McDougal I guess. It is none of Starrs concern what Monica says to her mother. Maybe thats why Monica is the way she is (because her mother is a poor role model). I consider this type of behavior as a measure of someones character. Notice Im not quite like Pezz saying its a jaywalking incident Im actually making a stronger statement and saying Clinton did the right thing by lying (to Starr) regarding this affair. This does not mean that I condone lying.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (738)	8/26/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: stan s.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Dwight, you made some interesting points last evening. It was a well constructed and obviously well thought out post. I don't think anyone questions whether the tryst was ill advised. Obviously it was. The idiocy of the whole affair, exacerbated by the knowledge that he was under special scrutiny due to the Jones case shows Clinton acted foolishly. Historically, being a fool and president are not mutually exclusive. Arguably, they go hand in hand. By itself a reason for removal from office? Of course not. The question then becomes was the lie under oath cause for removal from office. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.....LYING UNDER OATH.....important sounding concepts...and they are important ...indeed CRITICAL concepts.....but they are trivialized when used in this context.....like killing a fly by dropping a piano on it. Alledgedly, "Paula would you kiss it.............. Monica honey....let's just keep this 'tween you and me okay darlin'................ I never had sex with that women." Unseemly, childish, showing poor judgement? Yep, all of those. In fact, reasons for not being voted into office. Impeachable offense?......possibly, technically.....but removal from office for that would be absurd. The precedent, rather than insuring more able leaders, would result in an endless harangue...special prosecutors, partisan politics etc. (As an addendum, we probable all agree that rules pertaining to the special prosecutor will be amended next year when it's renewal comes up...by democrats and republicans alike). Like it or not.....grey areas exist and rational people learn to deal with them. If Starr's reports brings proof of crimes more substantive than those enumerated above, then kick him out...if and until....these "crimes" don't suffice. Stan