SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (1349)8/31/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
I agree that is what is being said. And if he had sex with a person not in his employ and absent any other sex-based conflict, it would be like Gary Hart. Public humiliation, but not much else.

But Clinton is an accused sexual predator. Those sexual accusations were being investigated in a court sanctioned manner. In that context, he must tell the truth about his sex life with his employees.

The perjury and obstruction will cost him dearly.



To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (1349)8/31/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: stan s.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Is the premise shaky? Perhaps...but can you not envision this opening Pandora's box?

Use the Jones case as an example...if a standing president can be forced to testify in such cases...is it not probable that frivolous cases will start to be filed....just in order to force testimony....with opposition lawyers (having delved into the most private of matters) questing for answers that can later be shown to be perjury even if on trivial matters.

This frenzy to rid the country of Clinton at any cost sets a disturbing precedent...(he's a lame duck anyway esp after the fall elections).

It's a slippery slope...but of course republicans will end the power of the special prosecutor...once Clinton's gone, for their own protection.

This has never been about justice, on either side...it's politics, we all know it...Clinton simply offended too many.



To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (1349)8/31/1998 9:34:00 PM
From: pezz  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Shaky it may be but it's our stance. BTW I don't concede << obstruction, harassment, or abuse of power>> .Clinton antagonists would have a real case if only Star could prove some of the real bad stuff BC has been accused of.
pez