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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis J Baltz who wrote (64541)	9/9/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: JPR	Respond to of 176387

Dennis: I concur with you on your position. Nowhere, I said that Clinton was clean. I wonder when enough is enough. I am only looking in to issues untouched in all these discussions. I am not passing judgment, but making observations on its impact on people, politics, good governance, foreign and domestic policy, family etc. I am glad that you chose to take a stand, with which I have no quarrels. JPR

To: Dennis J Baltz who wrote (64541)	9/10/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Dennis, I am not an admirer of Clinton, but I must ask this. If the Lewinsky affair is Starr's major target, what has that go to do with upholding the constitution? Put another way, how is Clinton's extramarital affairs a high crime or misdemeanor? Even if perjury were considered a high crime or misdemeanor, his lying about about the affair with Lewinsky does not constitute perjury for the following reason. He had admitted in his deposition to the affair with Gennifer Flowers so the record indicated he was a philanderer. One more affair between consenting adults certainly would not add any weight to the charge of sexual harassment, which is after all what Clinton was charged with. My understanding is that perjury has to be about something material to the charge, so proving that the guy had trouble keeping his zipper up does not speak to the issue at hand. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two issues that I have seen raised that could conceivably raise the specter of high crimes and misdemeanors: flagrant and willful disregard for the laws surrounding fund raising (especially if it can be shown that foreign powers received a benefit in exchange for money), and the use of confidential FBI files for unauthorized private purposes. While I have seen these charges cast about, I have seen no credible evidence (other than unsubstantiated claims) in support of these allegations. If either of trhese charges were supported by credible evidence I would be entirely in favor of proceding with impeachment hearings. Now contrast the Lewinsky charges to what happened under the Reagan Administration. A rump foreign policy arm was set up in the White House, presumably under the direction of Poindexter and run by Oliver North. Reagan vehemently denied the existence of this operation, and then claimed that he bore responsibility. There was a lot of evidence to indicate that then Vice President Bush knew and perhaps participated in its planning. Yet nothing came of the hearings to probe White House involvement. The fact is that there was and is a cadre of people on the hill out to get Clinton in any way they possibly can. And the danger that I see is that if they succeed they will have found a constitutional way of thwarting the will of the American people. CTC