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 (7000)	10/3/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't know exactly were I would draw the line but so far he isn't even close. I see. I feel differently. Clinton willingly went on TV and baldly lied, to provide backup to a string of lies told in court, in a civil suit. I think that, regardless of what the matter was about, a willful intent to deceive the American people damages a President's credibility. We wonder what else he is lying about. Then in his "I regret getting caught" TV speech, Clinton reveals that he felt it was okay to lie in court, if he felt it was a "politically motivated" effort. That, my friends, is scary. With this paranoid reasoning, I guess we can assume that Clinton has no compunction about lying to every Republican in Congress. Can our government function properly in this hostile environment of a President quite willing and able of lying to anyone perceived as a political threat? For this propensity to lie and deceive alone, Clinton should be thrown out of office as soon as possible.

To: pezz who wrote (7000)	10/3/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

When lawyers are asked questions about whether Clinton's variety of civil perjury would ordinarily be prosecuted, they are not generally asked the question in a very precise way, so a variety of answers, depending upon whom the legal experts favor, are very easy to give. (I purposely framed the question vaguely myself, above.) Perjury in any civil proceeding at all is quite rare, but by no means unheard of. Perjury in a dismissed proceeding of any kind is less likely still, unless the perjury went directly to why the case was dismissed (as it emphatically DID NOT) in the Jones case. Perjury about consensual sexual matters in a civil case is, essentially, or entirely unheard of. Including in sexual harassment cases. Not to mention such perjury, when the line of question was later ruled "not essential" to the fair determination of the case by the Judge. And then throw in the word dances, and the efforts by Clinton, at least partly successful, to avoid dead on falsehood, after giving weight to the defendant's interpretation of the language. No way Jose. Never ever. Doug

To: pezz who wrote (7000)	10/3/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I believe it's a safe assumption that they were trying to make sure that only serious crimes were to be impeachable offenses. Serious in relation to what? Would you consider speeding a serious crime? What if the captain of a large ship were speeding in the open ocean? would that be serious? What if the captain of a large ship were speeding in iceberg infested waters, would that be a crime? Would it be serious? Should such a captain be a captain? Is there a difference between a drunk driver and a drunk bus driver? Would you consider that reckless behavior? Is reckless behavior that results in an extended national distraction from important issues serious? Would it be naive to presume that such behavior, if disclosed would result in a major crisis? Can a man that engages in reckless behavior be trusted to lead the most powerful nation on earth? Zeuspaul

To: pezz who wrote (7000)	10/4/1998 3:08:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<If they wanted to be ambiguous they would have left out the "high"I believe it's a safe assumption that they were trying to make sure that only serious crimes were to be impeachable offenses.>> This is one of my favorite issues. If you go back to the English Common Law from which the impeachment wording was taken, you will find that the concept of a "high" crime was one that betrayed the trust of the people being governed. The English actually meant the word "misdemeanor" literally - it is an act of bad demeanor, that included either "misconduct in the execution of office or scandalous behavior in his private capacity" ("The Machinery of Justice in England" by R.M. Jackson, London 1967, as quoted in Ann Coulter's book). They considered lying to the public to be a serious betrayal of the public trust, and perjury to be even worse. <<I have heard differing opinions on whether or not perjury in a civil case that has been thrown out is usually brought to trial.I will leave that up to the legal folk to decide.[in other words I don't know]>> My position exactly.