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 (116)	9/21/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 157

Yet lying under oath for such a privy matter --adultory affairs-- shouldn't be such a dramatic issue. Wrong. His affair with Lewinsky, as pointed out in my previous post, was a direct violation of federal sexual harassment laws. That is why it was germane to the Paula Jones case. The fact that it was adultery is incidental. It would have been actionable if he were a bachelor and a virgin prior to the affair. In his testimony he lied to protect himself from civil and criminal liability. It is clear he was not lying to protect his wife and daughter because he admitted to other affairs in that testimony. Given that one has to question why he lied regarding this one affair. He lied because of its direct bearing on the Jones case. He then tried to get others, such as Betty Currie, to lie as well regarding his workplace affair with Lewinsky. That is obstruction of justice and witness tampering. It was only at this point that Starr was authorized to investigate. Clinton knew Starr was watching the Jones trial and his decision to perjure himself was reckless. We are not talking about the average person lying about adultery. We are talking about the person responsible for enforcing US laws lying to protect himself from a sexual harassment lawsuit and then trying to influence witnesses and obstruct justice. This is extremely serious. Btw if you were trying to make some point about the bourgeoisie please be more concise. Your commentary on the subject was not very clear, imo. If it helps I am well aware of the historical context of the word, and of the term imperialist, and recognize its current usage by effete leftist pseudo-intellectuals.