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: The Phoenix who wrote (17008)	9/14/1998 8:36:00 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

Gary, It's sad that Clinton couldn't keep his sex life private, but his deception of it is what will probably be his ultimate downfall. Some of my "very Democratic" friends are furious and say the best thing he could do for the party is resign. I am an independent voter and have voted for both republican and democratic candidates. I didn't vote for Clinton either time, I just didn't trust him. Sad to see my hunch come true. I agree it's bad to see this hang out in the breeze for the public to judge but when you are in congress or the presidency the rules of law are a little bit different. Bill is sure setting a bad example for our kids. The "buck stops here" and he will now pay the price for thinking he is above the law or common morals. regards, Eric

To: The Phoenix who wrote (17008)	9/14/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: losepay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Gary, Second, the documents presented by Starr are the prosecutions findings only. The condemnation the president is receiving is based only on that side of the case. It's like he's guilty until proven innocent. Even a gang member would have received more justice than the president has up to now. It's a travesty (regardless of how much of what Starr presented actually happened) that Clinton - our President - has been tried and found guilty before he has even had a chance to review the case presented by the prosecution. He is being tried by the media. The President's lawyers have also issued two rebuttals to the Starr report (one before Starr released his). Also, Clinton was there when this all happened. Nothing in the report was new to him(that explains the first rebuttal).

To: The Phoenix who wrote (17008)	9/14/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: George L. Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

>> First even Nixon, had time review the case against him before information was released to the public. When the documentation was released he was able to also offer his perspective. << I don't have a problem with him offering his perspective. >> Second, the documents presented by Starr are the prosecutions findings only. The condemnation the president is receiving is based only on that side of the case. << The report uses a cronology of the sworn testimony of many witnesses to put together a very convincing set of circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the secret service is what convinced me. I know it's just starrs presentation, and if you read my post you will notice that I said "if the evidence holds true, he has to go". I'm not the one who has to make the decision. I think Monica is a nutcase stalker from her own testimony, but the secret service stuff is pretty bad.

To: The Phoenix who wrote (17008)	9/15/1998 1:24:00 AM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

gary: <First even Nixon, had time review the case against him before information was released to the public.> beg to differ. the ic law was passed in '78, after nixon. the law says starr has to deliver his report to the judiciary committee. clinton is not legally allowed to see it first, his lawyers' requests/demands notwithstanding. second, this is not a civil case but rather more like a grand jury investigation, and if you're a target, you don't get the normal protections we associate with the law, e.g. your lawyer doesn't get to be with you when you're asked questions. starr compromised rathte than go up to the SC on the issue in clinton's case b/c clinton had delayed the matter so long with his obstructions, e.g., reagan testified voluntarily when asked b/c he thot that the war powers act was unconstitutional if push came to shove - and for these purposes, it doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong - but wjc refused 6 times and testified only under compulsion. third, he is guilty by his own admission, and guilty not only of lying but doing everything he could to prevent his lie to us from coming to light, including asking his friends, knowingly and unknowingly, to lie for him. according to wjc, that sd be sufficient to impeach him. i can't quote it exactly, but i saw it on the web this morning, tht in 1974 in his first race for congress in ark.'s 3rd district, law professor wjc publicly said that since nixon had lied and that was known - and remember, it was the coverup that nailed nixon, not the underlying acativity - an impeachment process wd be an unnec drain on the country and that nixon sd do the country and the office of the president a great favor by resigning. talk about irony, hubris, and the greek idea of fate!! fourth, the san jose mercury was not shooting from the hip particularly. aside from the lurid details, the general outline of the report wasn't a schocker. in one sense the dems were releived since there wasn't a "smoking gun." and, if you read hilllary's 1974 brief when she was on the watergate committee as a young lawyer - did you know that? - on the nature of impeachment and "high crimes and misdemeanors" in which she concluded with her fellow authors that demeaning the office was sufficient itself to justify impeachiment, the san jose mercury's postion makes sense. i'll admit starr could have put the lurid bits in the exhibits instead of the report. i think he had a grudge b/c he's been villified as being on a witchhunt, etc. and now it turns out that wjc did lie and that there was substance to the allegations. as starr said, since, e.g., wjc cdn't "remember" being alone with monica, he (starr) had to demonstrate that numerous laisons, phone calls after midnight, phone sex, etc. meand wjc's statements had no bearing on reality, i.e., they were lies, as clinton now admits. sorry to rant. i value your comments on csco. best regards, red jinn