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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7270)	9/28/1998 6:43:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< if it is proven beyond a doubt that the Pres. committed perjury, I'll concede he should go>> I'm curious about this one myself - if the case went to criminal court, and was decided by a jury, IMHO, Clinton would be found guilty. However, we will probably never know, since I doubt it will ever get to court. That being the case, how would you decide if Clinton committed perjury? Funny thing is, my decision (as if Congress cares <g>) will have little to do with the perjury, but with what that (and other things)says about Clinton's character, and his ability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of his office. I still haven't made up my mind yet, since I think the issues that would be addressed by Travelgate, Chinagate and Filegate are far more germane. Hopefully we'll find out the truth about all that someday. <<his enemies are salivating at the prospect of taking over both the White House & Congress and thereby pushing through their ultimate objective - reversing the abortion law>> I'm sure their goal is control of all three branches of government (the next President will probably be able to nominate a couple more Supreme Court Justices), but I doubt their main goal is to abolish the abortion law. Taking over only the Congress and the White House would not have that result - however, control of all three branches would. There are also issues regarding gun-control, trade, taxes, social spending, etc., all of which are in dispute. I would say the Republicans would much rather deal with taxes and social spending than with abortion. Assuming that Americans would put a Republican President into power along with a Republican Congress (very unlikely in my opinion), there would probably be a drastic shift in social support system in this country. Assuming that was bad, the people would correct it in the next election (only would have to put up with 2 years of it).

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7270)	9/29/1998 1:33:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Ann, re >I've expressed my opinion more than once, that if it is proven beyond a doubt that the Pres. committed perjury, I'll concede he should go..< Ann, how do you suppose Clinton could say that he did not commit perjury when: He was asked by Jones court if Monica's affidavit, which denied any sexual affair with Clinton, was true. "Absolutely true", responded Bill Clinton. Yet by the definition of sex in the Jones case, even using the very narrow view of the definition used by Clinton, Lewinsky was certainly having sex with Clinton when she administered oral sex to his private parts, even if Clinton was not engaging in sex. The GJ questioned Clinton closely on this matter of what exactly would be defined as sex in the Jones case, under Clinton's definition. Clinton clearly answered that the person being asked the question (himself) would have to engage in touching of any of the areas listed in the definition of sex. Since Clinton claims he never touched Monica in any of the defined areas, then he did not have sex. But Monica clearly did have sex, even under Clinton's definition. Yet that naughty boy Clinton baldly stated that Monica's affidavit was "absolutely true". Uh oh.... This isn't my original observation (see below), but it seems obvious now. Wonder how come the GJ investigators didn't call Clinton to the carpet on that plain example of perjury? "By Charles Krauthammer Friday, September 18, 1998; (1) Perjury. Clinton's defense -- that Monica Lewinsky had sex with him but he didn't have sex with her -- has rightly earned derision. But for the sake of argument, assume that Clinton is right that, under the definition offered by the Jones court, he did not have sex with her. Fine. But there is no semantic escape from this: When presented with Monica Lewinsky's deposition stating that she didn't have sex with him and asked if it was true, Clinton responded "absolutely true." (Like O. J. and his classic "absolutely 100 percent not guilty," Clinton prefers to lie with gusto.) But Clinton claims that she was the toucher and he the touchee. Hence, under the very court definition of sex that Clinton has been peddling, her denial of having sex was false and his affirmation was perjury." washingtonpost.com