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: Machaon who wrote (5027)	9/12/1998 1:32:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 13994

robert, i always through my constantly devaluing 2 cents in everywhere i can ;-) >>I do not think that the crimes fit the punishment of impeachment. If anything, with the spotlight on his every move, and Hillary watching his every step, President Clinton wouldn't dare screw up again.<< what bill did was undermine the justice system (lie under oath) of the united states of america. sure, the actual result of the deed wasn't all that meaningful (paula just wanted a piece of clinton's arse, for once ;-) the actual results aren't important. it is the PRINCIPAL. how would you like to be on trial and have everyone LIE under oath for their own selfish reasons? would you get justice? that, imho, is what the LEADER of this country now stands for. is he sorry? i don't know. he lied all the way up to and after the threat of actual physical evidence. once the stained dress sunk in, bill became "remorseful." of what, i'm not sure, though. ;-) but, that doesn't matter. he should be accused of felony perjury. he should be held in contempt because now he needs to "feel the pain" of joe avg citizen b/c that is what would happen to them. >>So, why get rid of him, if he has done a good job, and if the impeachment of Clinton is going to drag on forever, and do serious damage to this country?<< the oj trial cost a lot, too. in fact, lots of trials cost a lot. why don't we just stop having trials? the issue is perjury. the issue is can a president commit perjury and undermine the justice system. if bill clinton can then EVERY president from now on can LIE UNDER OATH WITH IMPUNITY. it would get absurd to say, "so and so can lie under oath with impunity b/c he does a "good" job (all evaluated in the eye of the beholder, btw) but so and so over here must be impeached b/c he did a bad job. you good/bad job is another's bad/good job. so, who do you put in power to decide "good" and "bad?" if a good worker commits crime a should he get a different penalty from a bad worker who also commits crime a? >>If Congress goes ahead with a nightmare impeachment trial, it will be a great waste of this country's energy. It will be an awful experience for this country to go through.<< seems it is a lock to happen then ;-) >>Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately, our partisan congress wants the White House back, and the Democratic Party seriously damaged.<< i wouldn't be surprised if congress goes after clinton, but for the WRONG reasons... it will be nothing if not INTERESTING ;-)

To: Machaon who wrote (5027)	9/12/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

robert, this goes to show how "sorry" mr bill clinton is... from the starr report: >>Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, Ms. Lewinsky turned over the dress that proved to bear traces of the President's semen. And the President, who had spurned six invitations to testify, finally agreed to provide his account to the grand jury. In that sworn testimony, he acknowledged "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky. << turned 'em down cold. six times. my word against hers, baby. can't get me. i'm safe. i'll lie and lie and lie and they can't get me. i'm slick, baby. excuse me? a blue dress? what? stains? "forgive me world, for i have sinned!" ;-) oh, and in addition, bill seems to continue to lie. he says he's sorry for 7 months of lying and then continues to lie. robert, please reconcile this testimoney of william jefferson clinton and the truth (and remember, he still says his testimoney was legally accurate!) >>During the deposition, the President's attorney, Robert Bennett, sought to limit questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett told Judge Susan Webber Wright that Ms. Lewinsky had executed "an affidavit which [Ms. Jones's lawyers] are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton." In a subsequent colloquy with Judge Wright, Mr. Bennett declared that as a result of "preparation of [President Clinton] for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit."(21) The President did not dispute his legal representative's assertion that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had had "absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form," nor did he dispute the implication that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, in denying "a sexual relationship," meant that there was "absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form." In subsequent questioning by his attorney, President Clinton testified under oath that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was "absolutely true."(22)<< so, a false avidavit is "completely true!" bill isn't sorry for this lie as he maintains it wasn't a lie. i'll tell you the one thing that aggravates me a lot is when someone plays me for the fool. i'm not a fool. i don't think america is foolish, either. more details... kfi640.com