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: mrknowitall who wrote (446)	9/19/1998 6:09:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 567

Don't give me this "the topic is" baloney. The topic is politics, as far as I can see. My point of view is perjury is almost never prosecuted, and it's ridiculously partisan to push it as an "impeachable offense" in this context. I used to follow Ken Starr's little "secret" operation, and I've checked the news a bit the last few, just peripheral stuff like the Salon episode, and Tom Delay's call for an FBI investigation on that. It's all a joke. And remember, the Paula Jones suit was set up and funded by conservative hacks, with advise from the impartial Ken Starr thrown in too. You talk about James Carville smear campaigns, give me a break. As far as I can see, the only relevant precedent for this stuff is previous presidential investigations, not some bogus analogy. The president can't be charged with a crime, at least if things haven't changed since Watergate. Remember the unindicted co-conspirator? So, given the serious charges against Nixon, that only lead to impeachment when he was nailed by his own tapes, and given the kid gloves treatment Reagan got on Iran-Contra, how do you explain a) the 4 1/2 year "secret" Starr chamber proceedings, and b) the current impeachment movement being whipped up by known adulterers Newt and Hyde? You're the one professing great concern for the "values America holds dear", or whatever. Remember, the Republicans were all ready to kill the special prosecutor act all together till they hatched the ridiculous Whitewater business. And Republicans were perfectly happy to put the lid on S&L prosecution fairly early on, so your bogus analogy falls apart there too. You can infer whatever you want from my posts, I infer from your voluminous posts on every possible board here that you want Clinton out. I don't think that's particularly consistent with past presidential investigations, and I don't think it's got anything to do with any moral righteousness on your part. I know for sure Newt and Henry Hyde can't argue morality on this stuff without being totally hypocritical. If Clinton choses to resign, that's fine, it's how such things would be handled in England. It's what Democrats are expected to do, apparently. Republicans, it's a different story, like Newt's instant $10million book deal being cool, and totally different from the measly $50k or so Jim Wright got. Old question. Name me one Republican who's spoken out with any honesty on this whole sordid affair. Not that Clinton isn't stupid, and he certainly should have known better. But, this is the stuff that everybody in the known universe lies about. And why in the world should Ken Starr be taken as some supreme judge of what is allowable defense here? Every time a defendant testifies on his own behalf, and is found guilty, it seems logical that they would be guilty of perjury. Prosecution for this is very, very rare. Of course, getting stuck in maximum security jail with daily full body searches for an indefinite period, just because you won't tell some pissant DA what he wants to hear, is rare, also. But Ken Starr's an exceptional guy. Secretive, too. I'm sure he's upheld his oath of office about as well as Clinton has. To bad he's not going to get his own special prosecutor, or even an FBI investigation into his routine leaks. That wouldn't be fair. Cheers, Dan.