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: dougjn who wrote (266)	9/14/1998 1:53:00 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

re: "how Clinton came to be entrapped into this perjury" Entrapped? Let me get this straight: the sly, evil 22 year-old enchantress maneuvers the gullible President into sin and crime. It's not his fault, she made him do it. What a clever and devious witch. Here's a list of all the types of perjury you've talked about: sex perjury (lying to a Grand Jury is OK if the topic is sex) entrapped perjury (she made him do it) alleged perjury (I guess you didn't hear him admit it?) immaterial perjury (they shouldn't have asked) minor perjury (he just lied a little bit) not technically perjury (he creatively re-defined the word sex) unimpeachable perjury (see above) You can split hairs forever, but it's still perjury. And perjury is a crime. And the House can define "High" any way they want to.

To: dougjn who wrote (266)	9/14/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

On the facts now before us, it is difficult to see how House members can vote on principle against submitting this matter to the Senate. At a minimum, this president appears to have committed perjury. Perjury committed by a president, however, may be one of the most serious forms of criminal conduct since it is the crime that shields all other criminal acts from the public. The House cannot simply proclaim, as is popular in current commentary, that any criminal acts are negated by a good economy. A president's latitude to commit crimes does not rise or fall with the gross national product. By any reasonable measure, perjury and obstruction of justice clearly fall within "high crimes or misdemeanors." - JONATHAN TURLEY, professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. ______________________________________________________________________ dougjn: You are sadly misinformed on many points. Obviously you have no legal training or much grasp of Constitutional history. Why do I know that you have no legal training? It's not just your weak arguments, it's the fact that you cannot spell "judgment", something that any lawyer sees thousands of times a year. >>I do believe that very often perjury would be impeachable. But not THIS most minor of all possible perjuries. If any perjury whatsoever is not, this one under all the circumstances is not. Wrong. This is perjury by the President of the United States. If he does not resign he must be impeached because it would deal a heavy blow to the rule of law in this country and to respect for the law if the President of the Unites States, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, can systematically and continually violate the law. This is what Clinton has done. His methods of violating the law include serial lying under oath. The evidence is overwhelming that he lied under oath in his January 17, 1998 civil deposition. That he lied to his cabinet and lied to his aides and then sent all of them out to repeat and vouch for his lies. He sent his wife on national TV to lie and blame his enemies for what are now his crimes. He went on national TV and shook his finger at us and lied unconditionally to the American people. The evidence is very strong and most critically that he resumed lying under oath in his criminal grand jury testimony on August 17th. And Clinton is still lying in that he contradicts Monica Lewinsky's account of what happened when they were alone together. On this matter she is far more credible that Clinton and her testimony is largely self-corroborating. Clinton's flak say that he has not done injury to the country, that what the nation's Constitutional framers were concerned with most was injury to the nation. Clinton's lawyer, Kendall, quoted Hamilton on the issue, but that was a mistake as the Hamilton words work against Clinton's argument. Hamilton said that impeachment would be a remedy for the abuse or violation of some public trust. Reasonable people may disagree about what a violation of the public trust is. But it cannot be argued that when the President repeatedly lied under oath and still will not admit what he did, that that does not rise to the level of a serious violation of the public trust. >.Whether Paula Jones' grievances against the President were discovered or created I do not know. Your rant about a right wing conspiracy has been shown to be without merit. The Supreme Court voted 9-0, unequivocally saying that the Jones matter should go forward. Discovery is a integral part of such suits and Clinton and his allies have supported the right of women to sue their harassers. Why should he have been immune from discovery? How dare you try blame Clinton's lying and its consequences on anyone other than himself. >>So they knew Clinton would be faced with a horrible choice. Either admit extramarital affairs, or commit perjury. If he admitted the affairs, it would be as good as announcing them on TV. It would become undeniable, and definite, and not subject to wiggle room. The Starr report details how Clinton made a premeditated choice to lie to the public and under oath for his own benefit. Dick Morris testified that Clinton called him up to do polls to see whether he could survive if he told the truth. Morris reported back that he could not. That's when Clinton made the decision to lie to the American people and to continue his perjury. Since that time Clinton have done his "Jimmy Swaggart" act and has asked for forgiveness but he has never stopped lying about his crimes. >>, but later ruled it immaterial, when it proved to be a lot of trouble to her proceedings. (Because of Starr's interest in the results, and conflicting claims on the evidence.) Wrong. Judge Wright followed Judge Starr's recommendation to separate the Lewinsky matter from the Jones case. Wright did not rule that it was "immaterial", she ruled that it was "non-essential" for the time being. Wright has recently warned Clinton that he may be subject to sanction for his perjury in her court. And many expect that because of Clinton's serial perjury, the Jones case will now be revived by the courts. >>So the perjury Clinton is alleged to have committed truly was with respect to questions that were not material. And for that reason, and because of their great prejudicial effects upon him, they should never have been asked of him. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG!!!!!