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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (6572)	9/22/1998 7:37:00 PM
From: RagTimeBand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

>>: this Prez has not traded arms with an avowed enemy<< How about the release of missle secrets to the Chinese? How about the FBI files in the White House? Emory

To: Bosco who wrote (6572)	9/22/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 9980

With all due respect Bosco this is not about sex, it is about perjury, tampering with witnesses and obstruction of justice. The shallow reporting of this issue in the non US press may like to portray this as an issue about sex because it feeds to their readerships desire to snicker about prudish Americans but it is wrong. This is an issue about wether the chief law enforcement agent of this country can be allowed to lie in sworn testimony in a court of law. If he had testified truthfully in the Paula Jones issue it would have cost him personal embarrassment but little more. OBTW your comment about him not trading arms with an avowed enemy. There are serious allegations about his having authorized the transfer of missile guidance technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign funds. For the record I supported Clinton in his initial presidential campaign.

To: Bosco who wrote (6572)	9/22/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

>>Personally, I find it all too [absurdly] amusing, how one man vendetta of another man's humanistic shortcoming can preoccupy the center stage for so long<< He lied to protect himself. He lied under oath. He stated his understanding to his secretary -- clearly witness tampering, but I guess not in your book, since he didn't say exactly --"will you lie for me to the grand jury?" it wasn't tampering. Should I trust him with matters of national security? Should I trust him with economic matters? Should I trust that he did no wrongdoing in whitewater, filegate, etc? Not on your life. People are angry about what he has done. I am glad Starr has worked hard to box him in on this issue. Get him out of office. This has been a sideshow -- I'll grant you that, but who made it? Nobody but Mr. Clinton. Maybe it's no big deal to you to lie directly to millions of people -- which is exactly what he did, on national television. Don't tell me to get real -- this is grounds for impeachment alone. Maybe to you it's no big deal for a president to have sex with somebody the age of his daughter, a suboordinate. I beg to differ ... If he weren't in the office now, he would be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury and witness tampering. A woman here locally was just sentenced to 3 years. It is not just about sex. It is about law. Are presidents and government officials subject to the same set of laws as the citizens? That was the intent of the framers of our constitution. When rulers are above the law everything goes to heck in a hurry.