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: pezz who wrote (6625)	10/2/1998 1:36:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>I was the original who coined the Jay walking defense.He lied about sex.Big deal, not a high crime or misdemeanor [as our founding fathers understood those words to mean]. It is a very big deal to those who are informed by the law rather than their emotions. Clinton ain't gonna be impeached for lying about sex. Clinton shall be impeached for lying under oath in a deposition in a sexual harassment suit and then committing serial perjury before a Federal criminal grand jury in an effort to cover for those earlier lies. That's felonious conduct and when combined with persuasive evidence that Clinton abused the power of his office to obstruct justice and tamper with Federal witnesses means that there is more than ample justification for his impeachment according to both the Founding Fathers and the 1974 Watergate model. In fact, the 1974 model cited "lying to the American People" alone as an impeachable offense. Remember, the Watergate-style rules that will be adopted mean that Clinton will impeached and removed not just for perjury and obstruction of justice but also for the vast panoply of Clinton scandals - giving missile technology to the Chinese for campaign cash, selling seats on Air Force One for contributions, political money conduits going all the way to a Chinese general, compiling and using 900 FBI files of Republicans in a Democratic computer database for blackmail, the Whitewater cover-up, the firing of Travel Office employees under trumped up charges and the use of secret police to intimidate witnesses. You should be celebrating these developments because it means that the US is a nation of laws, not men. Clinton has always used whatever means necessary to defeat the ends of justice but the Federal Courts and Starr have reaffirmed our Constitutional democracy. They chose justice over power, the power Clinton used to shield his criminal conduct. As one Solon has stated "The question is whether truth can be denied by power". (In a republican democracy) "Power must not be able to compel a lie". Thank you Supremes!

To: pezz who wrote (6625)	10/2/1998 1:53:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Hey Pezz.... Halloween is coming up and I need a costume. What would you suggest.... a hideous witch, or (the perennial favorite) Satan?

To: pezz who wrote (6625)	10/2/1998 2:17:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I welcome you to speak to me but you do not speak for me.>> I respect you for saying that. If I implied differently about you personally, I was wrong. I don't know you and haven't read many of your posts. I was defining Clintonese according to what I think Bill does and expects his supporters to go along with. To me the "Big Picture" no matter who's it is, doesn't justify me letting that happen. When all is said and done what do we really have? We have to live with all we've said and done, pezz. I've got enough to live with without turning any of it over to Bill. I actually was ok with BC until it came time to go along with this current issue. I know it is a struggle for him, and the rest of us when tested by our enemies. To me, he blew it. So, I have disappointed people before and I can relate. The underlying issue is different here though. The social contract that we have with him is underwritten with trust. He holds the highest office in the land, his presence there is under written by our trust. Once compromised, it is rare, maybe it is never possible for lost trust to be regained. It is a shared responsibility. That is why, we can't let an issue of deceit just lie there in our community. Every one begins suspecting and accusing or attacking one another when things don't go right. The clever guy who kicked the first domino is rarely visible. Some people get blamed, some get persecuted, sides are taken and bigotry against the other side by both sides raigns supreme. Its messy, it will never be perfect as you suggested earlier. Many people suspect lots of polititians of being dishonest. Some people say they all lie. There is a difference though of suspecting them and keeping a close eye on them vs knowing your being lied to and going along with it for the sake of the "Greater Good." There is no greater harm than agreeing to lies as a means to an end (the Big Picture). And there is no greater good than standing up to authority when it is wrong. There are many tyrannies in power today because its a King or Dictator that no one from within can speak against. That is not our case. Bill is one in 6 million. Many think he has been the most brilliant statesman of our time. But we are not dependant on him. He still can make valuable contributions, if he can move past this episode. When he lies, and he did; and when he continues to lie (using legalese) and he does; then he has broken the social contract we have with him. We owe him nothing beyond that. He is in the oval office on the basis of the public trust that put him there. I think he should move on by moving out. I would regain some of my respect of him and support for him. I don't care that much about all this legal mumbo jumbo. He is caught up in it. There is a way out for all of us. There are other good statesmen that qualify for the job of Presidency. He needs to step out and point a finger of honor to the office of Presidency of the United States. He wouldn't be the first. In fact, George Washington had to do that. Many wanted GW to remain in power and to give him authority similar to a King's. He refused and he did so in reference to the democracy we had all fought to win. Is the battle over. Do we stop now for the sake of one Charismatic leader who seems more concerned about his own issues or someones Big Picture that the ethics of public life. There are small subsets of communities all over our country struggling with whether to allow a Clinton style of defense to be used in every aspect of work, government, and community life. This to me is the Big Picture. And my answer is no. I wouldn't allow a family member, coworker, or acquaintence to lie or mislead me and continue to support them in the process. I wont do that for BC either. I did use sarcasm. I was needling you. I didn't mean to mislead you and I'm glad you caught on.

To: pezz who wrote (6625)	10/2/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< He lied about sex.Big deal, not a high crime or misdemeanor [as our founding fathers understood those words to mean].Here lies the place to disagree with my argument>> We've had this discussion before, but I feel it bears repeating - To say that the act of lying under oath was no big deal because it was done to hide an embarrassing affair, makes no sense if you change the act from lying to murder. Both are felonies - both have victims. Yes one is a more serious crime, but the REASON the crime is committed is not relevant, only the magnitude of the crime. If you are saying that perjury (or even lying under oath that doesn't meet the standards of perjury) is not an impeachable offense, where murder would be, I would understand. However, you seem to be saying "it depends on what you mean by lying".