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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brad Bolen who wrote (1150)	9/18/1998 1:24:00 AM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1533

You have hit the nail on the head. Some people seem to have deluded themselves that once they get Clinton on this, we all can live happily ever after. But the precedents that are established along the way will haunt people for years to come. And many years hence, I'm sure there will be movies about this sordid episode, along the lines of "Guilty by Suspicion" and "People vs. Larry Flynt", and future generations will criticize us for deluding ourselves that the ends can justify the means. They NEVER have and they NEVER will. Dipy.

To: Brad Bolen who wrote (1150)	9/18/1998 2:18:00 AM
From: PAT JENNING	Respond to of 1533

<<Clinton supporters go by the mantra that this about sex. The right counters by saying it is about lying under oath.>> If it is simply about lying under oath, why do the Clinton bashers spend so much time talking about Clinton's defiling of the Oval office, his disrespect for women, his cradle-robbing, and even his disfunctionality? I listen to Rush Limbaugh on the way to work (for as long as I can stand him) and even put on George Putnam (a local Southern California hero), and I can guarantee you that they don't spend hour after hour only talking about perjury. When Newt Gingrich calls Clinton a misogynist, he's not talking about perjury, either. The Republicans want to focus on the perjury issue because they think that honesty is the one common principal that all of us must hold, whatever our political viewpoints. What makes it so hard for some of us to agree to their argument is the anger we feel over Starr's "the ends justifies the means" approach to this case. Our legal system long ago rejected the notion that evidence of criminality intrinsically justified the means by which it was obtained. That's why, for instance, search warrants must specify what is being searched for and cannot be used as a carte blanche to seize whatever criminal paraphernalia the police might happen to find.

To: Brad Bolen who wrote (1150)	9/18/1998 9:04:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

<<the unlimited inquisition under the 'rule of law' that isn't.>> I agree. I think that Starr acted within his mandate, but I think the mandate was flawed. IMHO, the OIC statute will undergo, shall we say, some much needed changes after this "affair". As far as the questioning goes - if I were under oath in a Grand Jury setting and the questioning proceeded as you suggest, I would refuse to answer. If the judge insisted that the questions were relevant, I would concede the issue and answer truthfully, no matter how unpleasant that might be. I don't buy your explanation of Clinton's actions. The GJ process has been with us since before the founding of the U.S., and has been subject to the same kind of abuses all along. Why is it only now becoming a problem? Do you really believe that Clinton is the first person to be asked questions he found embarrassing? Do you really think it's okay or understandable that people lie about something under investigation because telling the truth might embarrass them? The questioning methods and circumstances that Clinton was under were no different from those undergone by people every day. It would not be acceptable for them to lie under oath, and it's not acceptable for the President to do so. I understand that you were not condoning Clinton's actions, but were explaining the American reaction to it, and I agree with your analysis completely. It just yanks my chain (if you'll pardon the expression) to see any rationalization even remotely implying that lying under oath is understandable, because I truly do believe that the only thing keeping us free is that everyone is subject to the same laws.