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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ed who wrote (16969)	9/13/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

ed: please don't say what clinton's spinners are saying. the issue is not sex. it's whether he lied under oath and used the power of his office to obstruct justice. remember, nixon didn't authorize or even know about the break-in till after; it was the coverup that did him in, and rightly so. clinton, when he was running for president, criticized people for lying under oath in connection with iran-contra, and said that was grounds for severe punishment. he also said, btw, that if anyone in his administration ever looked at passport files - let alone private fbi files - that person would be fired summarily. a man's private life is his, but when he makes it public by lying under oath in a trial, even if the charges in the trial are later dismissed (and no one at the time knew they would be, that's why we have trials among other reasons), then he must be responsible for his actions. you might read hillary clinton's brief on the responsiblity of congress and the use of impeachment which she wrote when she was on the watergate committee. among other things, impeachment is to remove someone from office who has sullied and demeaned the postion, which, say what you will, clinton has done. i repeat, sex is not the issue. the issue is lying/covering up, and it doesn't matter what it's about. if the individual whom the constitution names with chief responsibility to faithfully and fully carry out the laws lies -and not just once, but repeatedly over months and then goes to great lengths to prevent the discovery of his lies - then i think you have grave grounds to consider impeachment, and to do it if the evidence proves the case. (btw, we'll never know how much he conttributed to the "cost" of starr's investigation by making up spurious arguments that forced starr to go to the Supreme Court twice and the Courst of Appeal several times (and when the SC votes 9-0, i consider the arguments specious and spurious probably).) sorry to rant, and it's hard for me to stay rational on this subject when i consider he's the only president my kids have known, and i have to turn off the news when the scandal comes on. regards. red jinn