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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2858)	9/15/1998 2:30:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

Ok, leave the sex out of the report. The perjury was about sex. So what we have left is a perjury case about something but we can't tell you it is. DUH

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2858)	9/15/1998 3:03:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>No you are confused. You know why? Because you dont seem to understand the playing field. The key here is public perception.< Precisely, and Mr. Clinton has tried to use this to his advantage by publicly claiming his lies were "legally" the truth (Mr. Starr had no such advantage). What Mr. Clitnon then has claimed is that the law is inferior to common sense in judging the truth, and that sex to everyday America is not sex to the law. This then requires that we firm up the law to make it compatible with common sense and practical reality, or that we forego the law altogether. Choosing the former will eventually force us to legislate ourselves into bondage, and the choosing the latter will eventually cause anarchy. Starr had to do what he did, to avoid either scenario. He simply wanted to illustrate that by any reasonable human measure, Clinton had sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. His merely stating this as fact would have been insufficient against a fleet of attorneys who would go onto the public airways to deny reality. Starr simply used a public source, the internet, to counter what he knew was the debased character of the Clinton camp. There is no need for censorship here. Let it all hang out for the world to see. Let the truth reign, confronting all the filthy lies of our President. >And we all know the public eats up tabloid journalism.< Yes, which is why Starr gave his report directly to the public. The report was not tabloid journalism, madam, it was the bold, unadulterated truth. The truth sometimes hurt, but it is only by the truth that America will be set free from the ravages of Clintionian corruption. You apparently cannot see that Clinton is worse than all, in that he is both corrupt and corrupter. >So, regardless of the legality, the document that you put forth to the public has to immediately appear to drive home the objective. Which, as I understood it, was perjury.< Ah, but the document drives home this, and much more. But unfortunately the argument is apparently too long to hold the attention of the President's supporters. >...etc - NOT SEX (well thats what everyone here kept telling me). If you absolutely have to obtain the lurid details of each encounter in order to prove perjery (which I still dont think was necessary AT ALL but since I dont have a legal background Ill give it to you) then you put those titillating details in a separate document and for gods sake dont publish them on the internet!< If you must restrict the prosecutor in this manner, then for God's sake tell the President's men to stay off the tube, or the radio. For God's sake, madam, no one should use any technology at all to communicate the truth. >Because you know what the public is going to do when they see this explicit stuff! They are going to think it was about sex arent they! DOH!< And this is precisely what they should think of, because remember, the President has publicly claimed he has never legally engaged in sex with Miss Lewinsky. Starr simply used the evidence to further prove the President is a liar.