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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (7217)	9/28/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

What's hard to understand is putting up other people to lie for him both in the public arena and in the legal arena. I can understand taking it upon himself to lie but not involving others, with the exception of professional sleazes like Ann Lewis, Manny Grunwald, and James Carville.

To: dougjn who wrote (7217)	9/28/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Hi dougjn; I suspect that congress has too much ability to question the president's policies. But the fact is that as of now, congress does have that ability, and the courts have supported it. While it is true that the Jones lawsuit was dismissed, it is not known whether it would have been dismissed if the Lewinsky affidavit had been truthful. Paula Jones suit was dismissed because of an inability to show harm. The harm claimed is lack of promotion. Lewinsky was treated very kindly by the president in that area, and her testimony might have supported the harm claimed by Jones. Sure the judge ruled the evidence inadmissable due to immateriality, but that could have been because the evidence was false and/or misleading. In the actual fact, Paula Jones would like to see her case reopened, and is citing the Lewinsky affair as a reason. If this were a hopeless case, why are all the newspapers reporting that the president's lawyers are considering settlement? It is possible that they are all mistaken, of course. In legal proceedings, the ends does not justify the means. Otherwise, a lot more criminals, (as well as some innocents, no doubt,) would be in jail. Similarly, keeping things private does not justify lying, or even misleading, under oath. I suppose that a lot of this is quite consistent with Clinton's morals, as demonstrated by his avoiding the draft. Since he felt the war wasn't right, he felt his avoiding the laws was justified. This is the thinking of a coward. In both cases, Clinton did not confront the injustice, he instead avoided his own personal responsiblity. With the draft, he could have made a stand, and burned his card. Many real men did, and paid the price. With the testimony, he could have refused to answer, or testified truthfully while making his case. Instead, he avoided the issue. Those interested in the interaction between a man and a society's unjust actions may read Socrate's Apology for an account of the road that Bill Clinton failed to take. Two wrongs do not make a right. Nobody has the right to take the law into our own hands. The ends do not justify the means. -- Carl