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 (6723)	10/2/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<you stopped just at the wrong place.The next logical question was "How about lying to hide an affair?">> What we were talking about was acceptable reasons for breaking a law. Saving someone's life would be an acceptable reason. Saving yourself from embarrassment would not. Note that we are talking about justification for lawbreaking, not discussing impeachment. The next logical question would be - is impeachment "required" for all instances of Presidential lawbreaking? If not, how do you draw a line? As I posted elsewhere, my worry is that Clinton has "attacked" our judicial system and has used his position to put himself above the law by lying, manipulating the public and the press through his lies, and by using his position to hire private investigators, the FBI and the IRS to harass and intimidate people that disagree with him. You obviously disagree, and I truly believe that fair open hearings would convince one of us of the error of their ways. I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but that can only happen when Clinton stops lying, stops trying to hide what has really happened, and people on both sides take an honest look at this administration and its actions and motivations.