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: Achilles who wrote (5950)	9/28/1998 9:52:00 PM
From: TheRainmaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

There you go again.. Put down the New York times and get to the issue..You are persistent at trying to warp the truth..Our law is really clear when it comes to lying to a grand jury.. If you sent your 21 year old daughter to work at the Whitehouse and the President screwed your daughter..did he have a sexual affair with her or not??

To: Achilles who wrote (5950)	9/28/1998 11:09:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Achilles, I wouldn't fret too much about the level of education about our Constitution you lost out on by skipping the average U.S. high school. (Forgivable BTW, for a Canadian.<g>) You are doing a fine job of statutory construction. A further point is that perjury is punished (if at all) in the U.S. very differently depending upon what is being covered up, and the circumstances of the perjury. Clinton's perjury (if it was, it's borderline) is at the low, low side of seriousness on both counts, clearly. The only thing suggesting "height" to this crime is the office of the person committing the crime. And yet the language requiring that the nature of the crime be high if a crime is to lead to impeachment is talking specifically, and first in a short list, about the President. So if his office alone rendered any crime he commits "high" the qualifier "high", as well as the word "other" (in the phrase "treason, bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors") would be rendered meaningless. That reading would therefore violate a cardinal principal of statutory construction -- that the words in the statute (or Constitution) should be read as all having meaning. Doug