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: Zeev Hed who wrote (5079)	9/12/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Denice	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 13994

"The one with no sin cast the first stone." I've read that somewhere else before you wrote it. I wonder where???? I believe we want to see how much more tax payer's money we can spend before we decide not to impeach the man. I wonder if anyone has had the time to dig into Kenneth Starr's past? Now that's what I call the start of a number 1 daytime soap! Denice

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5079)	9/12/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: Constance K. Landis	Respond to of 13994

> Come on Skeeter, The guy did not have intercourse with her, in marital law, without intercourse the marriage is not consummated, no matter how many "fondlings" and "touching" and even commission of the sin of "spreading your seed in vain" (ejaculation or masturbation), thus, he did not have a "sexual relationship"< Boy oh boy does this make a nice case for all those people in the world who don't give a care who they hurt or what they do, e.g. those with out a conscience or moral bone in their body. Any idea of how you might feel being betrayed? Oh excuse me it's not betrayal without intercourse, is that right? In order to commit these acts when in a relationship with another person somewhere along the line you are going to have to lie and lie again. Do I feel sorry for you and anyone that subscribes to that way of thinking. I would imagine that if enough people in this country feel this way the slickster will stay right where he is.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5079)	9/12/1998 5:53:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 13994

zeev, nobody is w/o sin so nobody should be punished, right? that is your arguement and it is weak. extremely weak. as for the definition of sex that clinton denied i disagree with you. read the definition. there was nothing about actual intercourse. in addition, using thatd definition of sex even clinton agreed monica had a sexual relationship with him. however, he affirmed, under oath, her statement that she didn't have a sexual relationship with him. straight perjury and i believe your opinion is in the minority.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5079)	9/13/1998 12:01:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Zeev I think that from a strictly legal standpoint the case for perjury is pretty clear cut. As for the obstruction of justice charge as it relates to getting others to lie on his behalf I think it is bogus. To me there is a big difference between lying to associates and and trying to persuede associates to lie. I am still baffled as to why the man chose to lie under oath, and then made his famous finger wagging speech to the public. Surely his wife knew the truth by then, and he had nothing to lose by telling the truth. I can only attribute it to an arrogant belief that the public will believe anything that he says and a feeling that he is above the law. In the end I think that his lie to the American public will hurt him more than the perjury. That memorable sound bite is in everyone's minds, and explains his loss of support in the polls. We all remember the line "I am not a crook". I expect that the line "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" will be equally memorable to the next generation. The other thing that will hurt him is his failure to apologize when he was finally was forced to admit the affair. The public is not buying his line that his answer was "legally accurate", so hiding behind legal technicalities will only hurt him. His latest tack of begging for forgiveness is much more likely to succeed. In my opinion there will be much debate in the house as to whether or not to impeach the man, but in the end most politicians are spineless. In my view if the polls run in Clinton's favor, the house will back off. If the run strongly against him, they will impeach. If the polls are intermediate, then the politicians will have to search down deep and do what they think is right. Thus even though I think the legal case for perjury is clear cut, I think the case will be won or lost in the battle for the public. Carl