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 : RE-ELECT CLINTON- IMPEACH REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (113)	9/21/1998 8:00:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 157

so I can't let you go on with words like "perjury", "violating the law" Lying under oath is perjury. He has admitted to lying during the Paul Jones testimony. He continues to try and weasel around with language stating that a lie is not perjury. Equivalent to his testimony in which he tried to parse the definition of the word 'is'. Lying while under oath is perjury. He has admitted to that. Under federal sexual harrassment statutes it is specifically against the law for two federal employees to engage in sex acts when one is in a management position relative to the other. They are both federal employees, he is in the ultimate federal management position and he has admitted to having sex with her. So he has admitted to violating the law although he refuses to use the words. So both items which you don't wish to let me go on with are items he has admitted but is just refusing to use specific words in order to avoid prosecution. We have discussed your speculation that Monica Lewinsky is an agent for a foreign power seeking to influence US policy. As you know I disagree with the scenario. But even if true it would be irrelevant. He is an adult capable of making decisions and he decided by himself to take the actions he did and should be held accountable. And if ML was an agent of a foreign power and he let himself be compromised in such a fashion that is all the more reason to pursue the issue. I am aware of the Belgian situation you mention. But it has no bearing on this situation. Despite what the defenders of the President wish to portray this as, it is not a case about sex. If Clinton had admitted to the activity with Lewinsky in January it would have impacted the Jones trial but Starr never would have been able to get involved. It was his perjury and subsequent continuous lying and obstruction of justice that has gotten him to this state. The defining moment of this pathetic soap opera is Clinton speaking to the American people in January, literally waving his finger in our face and indignantly and dismissively saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". That is what is coming back to haunt him. The lying.