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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Who, me? who wrote (5490)	9/26/1998 12:42:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Nope, Clinton cleverly avoided perjury. Even if the Lewinsky testimony had not been ruled "unnecessary" to the fair determination of Paula Jones claim of sexual harassment. But since she did, it could not possibly have had an effect on the outcome of the case. Which is an ABSOLUTELY necessary element for committing the CRIME of perjury. Starr himself claimed only three instances of lying under oath in Clinton's grand jury testimony. Two of those are real Starr reaches that will never hold up. The third is the key issue of did the President diddle her, or didn't he? He says no, she says a few times, yes. It would never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a unanimous jury. Hence there is no CRIME of perjury there either. And with the public view as it is, the Senate will not dare to play games. Starr's other charges aren't legally convincing even on his description of the evidence. And besides, the public is becoming well aware that the legalisms are just an excuse to throw the President out for immorality. As such is viewed by righteous Republicans. Yuuuckkk. Doug