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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (2629)9/13/1998 12:44:00 AM
From: INFO_DART  Respond to of 67261
 
I Do Not Like Green Eggs and Ham

Reason would cause us to believe Mr. Starr found much more than
this against Mr. Clinton

"Reason," huh? It's not in the report, therefore the parsimonious and therefore reasonable conclusion is that Starr found nothing.

The money is already well spent in my opinion. Indeed, $40 million is not a great deal of money to uncover the truth of deeply entrenched corruption.

Indeed, perhaps each member of the Supreme Court and each member of Congress and each Governor and the Mayors of sufficient size cities and their Board of Supervisors should each have their own individual special prosecutor investigating all their activities. But, let's limit it to investigations involving their official duties.

But you falsely minimize the finding that Clinton lied.
Falsely minimize the findings that Clinton lied? Huh? I said, "The most egregious 'Abuse of Power' that the leader of the most powerful entity known to exist in the universe was found to be: dishonesty . . .."
Last time I checked, dishonesty included lying.
I think that the real dispute here, if there is one, is that on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a one and you would give it a somewhat higher score. Just for a point of reference, what score would you give to genocide or the unlawful implementation of marshal law? A seven or an eight?

Moreover, the President's lie is not merely a lie. It was given with
the express purpose of a defense against a lawsuit directed at the
President. Simply put, the President lied in order to protect
himself, thereby attempting to deny justice to another. Lies are not
allowed as a defense in court; and Mr. Clinton, as a lawyer
himself, and as President obviously knew this when he lied.


I agree. Yet, I do think it is worth noting that in this capacity his role was that of citizen and not as the President. Of course, it would be a good thing for the President to be a good citizen. However, I sense that you may be somewhat na‹ve with regard to the practice of "Justice" in the U.S.

Now, of course you will claim all null and void because the suit
was tossed out. But the perjury charge remains in full force as the
President was duty bound to the court to tell the truth, and not
specifically to Mrs. Jone's case. This is why Judge Wright is
considering issuing sanctions against the President for contempt of
court. Logically, she can do none else.

I don't know about that.

>Is the glass half empty or half full? Zero, Nothing wrong with his
business dealings or the first lady's or whatever matter of
substance Starr was appointed to investigate. Nothing on Filegate,
Whitewater, Travelgate, illegal campaign contributions, the
Chinese connection, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, nor any other
alleged Clinton Administration misdeeds.<

Irrelevant. Firstly, these investigations are still underway. So
Clinton supporters should perhaps employ a bit of their own
advice and "reserve judgement" on this issue. Secondly, this can
by no means mitigate the fact of perjury, and it can by no means
mitigate the proven fact of the President's lie to the American
people.

Well, you're just getting to be a little too redundant here

These issues provide more than ample evidence . . .
THESE issues? There is only one issue raised. Yes, we know he lied. That is it. You can twist and turn it as many times as you like. Just like Dr. Seuss' Sam says, "I do not like green eggs and ham," Johannes Pilch you am. It's not that complicated.

. . . to at least one American in this country to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt whatever, that William Jefferson Clinton, is unfit to represent him as President of the United States.

Fortuantely, the U.S. doesn't have votes of no confidence to bring down the government, so live with it until the next election.

Johannes Pilch, now that I have shown you the courtesy of addressing your points, perhaps you could take a more intellectually honest approach to addressing mine. It isn't quite sufficient to say, "Reason would cause us to believe." Reasonable argument requires a little more than that.

I'll repeat it here for your conveyance:

There is Substantial and Credible Information that all should be very pleased that after $40,000,000+ and hundreds of man years of investigational effort, the most egregious "Abuse of Power" that the leader of the most powerful entity known to exist in the universe was found to be: dishonesty about occasional "oral sex".

Is the glass half empty or half full?




To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (2629)9/13/1998 1:05:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Respond to of 67261
 
This is why Judge Wright is considering issuing sanctions against the President for contempt of court. Logically, she can do none else.

I agree in full with all you say. I'm wondering why Clinton isn't being charged with perjury? Is a President above the law? If so, why does he file a tax return? Why not just tell the IRS to go jump in a lake?

If there is zero consequence to Clinton for the perjury so willfully and knowingly done in the PJ deposition, I will see this as a grave miscarriage of justice, and an affront to every law-abiding American. When the highest official in the land is doing all but claiming he is above the laws that common folk have to abide by, that is scary. The damage to society will/would probably be incalculable.

I'm beginning to think that the militia movement is looking more and more reasonable all the time. It looks like that those with the power and the money don't have to abide by the laws of the land.

Clinton has irrevocably already caused treasonous damage to the United States, and if he's not thrown out of office soon, society will begin to show the effects of his corrupting example.