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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (263)	9/13/1998 11:33:00 PM
From: Mosko	Respond to of 567

OK everybody.... Should Clinton resign? Hell, yes! Not for lying and being duplicitous, that goes along with the job description in my book. (Helloooo, he's a politician isn't he?). I think he should resign for being an idiot. What goofball would be having sex with an intern in the halls of the White House knowing at that very moment he was being investigated for Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. That all the power the republican party had at it's disposal was out there sniffing for any kind of dirt possible. That shows a severe lack of brainpower in my book. The interesting thing here is WHEN would he resign. I predict that we see all the republicans and democrats on this dodgeball court switching sides. It's already begun. Newt is suddenly Mr. Reasonable, meanwhile all the Demo's are the ones sporting the harsh rhetoric. You know why? Because the Republicans want their whipping boy (Clint) to stick around for the next 2 years. They want him swinging in the wind where they can continue to take potshots at him and further their chances in the next presidential election. Now pay attention to this date: JAN 20 1999. I predict the Democrats will be the ones to take their boy down, and they will make this happen after Jan 20.....because if Al Gore were to take office before Jan 20th he would have served more than a 2 year term and therefore could not run for re-election. After Jan 20th he would be running as the incumbent. So, you better run Bill run. You're own party is after you and I hope they get you!......that is, after Jan. 20th. Mosko

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (263)	9/14/1998 2:21:00 AM
From: James A. Shankland	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

I haven't really thought about the subdivisions and catagories of perjury before, and which ones are really-and-truly-evil, and which ones are not-so-bad-lets-just-look-the-other-way. I guess, in your mind, if sex is involved, then it fits into the let's-not-punish-it type of perjury. A man's home is his castle, and all that. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional scholar, so I don't know if the law makes any distinctions between "sex perjury" and "non-sex perjury". But I've never heard of any such distinction, in the law or otherwise, so I suspect that the distinction is only in your own mind. Bones, Bones! That's "Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a lawyer!" The law recognizes that there are tremendous variations in the seriousness of a crime and the punishment it deserves, depending on a variety of extenuating or aggravating circumstances. Even homicide, that most fundamental and irreparable of crimes, is subdivided into several categories, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first degree murder with special circumstances. We punish the enraged mother who shoots the man who molested her sun less severely than the man who shoots a 7-11 clerk in cold blood for $100, while still recognizing that both are crimes. Even when the charge is the same, judges are supposed to weigh the particular circumstances of the case when passing sentence. I don't take what Clinton did lightly. But do Clinton's actions warrant removal from office? There are a number of extenuating circumstances, including the fact that no prior President has been under such intense, ongoing legal scrutiny by a politically hostile prosecutor with a nearly unlimited mandate, and that the alleged perjury occurred in a matter of tangential relevance (indeed, a matter later ruled to be not relevant) in a civil lawsuit unrelated to the President's official duties, underwritten by the President's political enemies. Again, that doesn't make it right; but it is an extenuating circumstance. Compared with some of the things that have gone on in previous administrations, it starts to look downright inconsequential.