SI
SI
discoversearch

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: MikeyB who wrote (509)9/22/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: Craig K  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 567
 
I agree...if we let him get away with it, then we must release those in prison for the same crimes, and re-write the law books to remove the crime...this will undermine any usefulness of the word "Oath"...and it will just become something "to be broken"...

wake up America....it is the lessons,examples, and leadership that we pass down to our children that matter! Not the dollar that you think that you are going to loose by kicking this guy out....Have some standards. We are passing down two things to our children:

1) Debt that they will never be able to repay..
2) A horrifying lack of moral standards and behavior..

...This is a proud country and to have a "Habitual Liar" as our leader is disgraceful!!!!

What to you think those that died for this country would think of our approvals of such an individual?????

Craig....

Feeling pretty darn ashamed of some of my fellow countrymen!!!!



To: MikeyB who wrote (509)9/22/1998 3:13:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Respond to of 567
 
Ok, I know I said I'd go away, but that last one was a long piece, and maybe you missed this. I also have to note that I seem to have found my honest Republican on the subject, no thanks to you guys. He chooses to remain anonymous here, of course, I didn't say he was stupid. From the NYT story:

"I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it."

And as for the perjury offense, that gets prosecuted 3 times a year by the Feds, there's this context I find relevant, from Salon:

2. At the time of his appointment as Whitewater independent counsel, Starr, a $1 million-a-year Washington attorney with the high-powered firm of Kirkland & Ellis, was advising the Paula Jones camp on her sexual harassment suit against Clinton and offered to write a friend-of-the-court brief on her behalf. He was also representing the tobacco industry, an ardent foe of the Clinton administration. Later, Iran-contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh would comment that, considering Starr's conflicts of interest, he should have felt obligated to turn down the job of investigating Clinton.

And, it appears he maintained contacts with the Paula Jones operation all along. Here's a couple things I left out- From Salon:

Over the past seven months, Salon has published a massive amount of information about Starr, his investigation and the conflicts of interest between his probe and the Arkansas Project, a secret $2.4 million project to undermine Clinton financed by Starr's former patron, Richard Mellon Scaife.

Sounds like a liberal press conspiracy to me. And from the NYT:

Carville, one of Clinton's closest political associates, says in the book that he met Starr in October 1993, in the USAir executive lounge at Washington National Airport, although at the time he had no idea who Starr was. Carville recalled that a stranger walked up to him and "started spouting an unsolicited and shameful tirade against the president."

"Your boy's getting rolled," Carville said the stranger said ominously to him before walking away.


I'm not sure about the "getting rolled" slang, I think it usually refers to a mugging, not a quest for the "truth". But this is just Carville's partisan smear campaign, so unlike Starr's. Still, it has this strange ring of a different kind of "truth" to it.

Once more, on lying under oath, what percent might you guess gets prosecuted? 12 convictions in 4 years at the federal level, wow. Do you think anybody goes through congressional testimony looking for politicians to go after? It's all on the record. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd also guess that you're technically wrong about "The circumstances may affect the sentence but they should *not* influence the determination of guiilt or innocence." Justifiable homicide is an acquital, not a conviction, as near as I remember. Like my anonymous honest Republican said, "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Happens all the time in real life, you know.

Cheers, Dan.