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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5635)	9/27/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Her real attempt was to expose the hypocritical RR for what they really are - a bunch of meddling busybodies with nothing more to do than dig up dirt on peoples private lives.... think she succeeded there? I do.>> Absolutely. My previous take was to balance moderate Republicans for economic issues, with a moderate Democratic President to keep the Repubs. in some sort of moderate check, but still making some reforms. My current attitude is to just scourge Republicans left and right as all being potential servants of the RR base pressure. For instance, I don't know before if I would have voted for Schumer instead of D'Amato. I find D'Amato personally distasteful. But he's also an economic moderate, for the most part. Schumer's pretty liberal all across the board. Well, now I'm remembering D'Amato's early Whitewater extremist jihads that were going nowhere but he kept it going on and on. Right now D'Amato's out of there, as far as I'm concerned. I'm voting AGAINST all national level Republicans without paying much attention to anything else. Put the sanctimony back in its box. Doug

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5635)	9/27/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Michelle, you still don't get it, do you? The Republicans don't base their actions on "finger in the wind" legislation -- like Klintoon does. And the Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, doesn't either. re >Her real attempt was to expose the hypocritical RR for what they really are - a bunch of meddling busybodies with nothing more to do than dig up dirt on peoples private lives.... think she succeeded there? I do.< Dream on. Janet Reno knew darn well that Clinton was more than likely guilty of perjury, which is a form of Obstruction of Justice, and so she could not stop Starr, otherwise you know she would have. Even if Clinton escapes with his remaining lame-duck term, you know his legacy has been irreparably tarnished beyond repair. His tawdry use of the Oval Office, his childish word-play trying to dodge and evade questions from the Grand Jury - mostly middle-aged black women - is now a part of history. You can bet that Clinton wishes dearly that Janet had said no to Starr. Yes Michelle, Janet Reno does know what perjury is, and as Carl (Bilow) posted last night, legal Perjury does definitely include remaining silent while your attorney tells a blatant falsehood in your behalf: It is indeed perjury, "for the purposes of misleading this Federal Court", and is a sentenceable felony. Bye bye, Bubba. Say hello to prison blues. The man is no more than a criminal-to-be.