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: Big D who wrote (7832)	10/5/1998 9:18:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Little D.. why would I worship Clinton, that's your fantasy, you've probably got a picture of him on your refrigerator. <g> I agree with much of what you said except the age thing. Heck, did you piss on Sinatra for chasing Mia Farrow and a half dozen other young ladies? At age 21 most women are a lot more mature and motivated than you might imagine. Forget the age difference, it doesn't work.. he's a cad and she's no innocent young lady.

To: Big D who wrote (7832)	10/5/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

Clinton did not lie to the Grand Jury Starr charged him with three false statements: (1) Lying about the definition of sexual relations. That's absurd; the President, Jones, and Starr have a legal dispute over that term. How is that perjury? How is that even false? (2) The President falsely "contradicted" Lewinsky's testimony. I've never heard of a perjury charge ever couched that way. The stupidity of this charge is exemplified by the fact that Starr could not point to a single sentence from the President's testimony that was demonstrably false. In fact, the one question that had the President nailed was botched after the set-up by the prosecutor: "And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with ML in the Jones Deposition, under that definition, correct?" A: "That's correct, sir." The problem with the question is that the predicate "And you testified" was ambiguous because it could have been referring to the Jones Deposition or it could have been referring to his earlier testimony before the GJ. The question they wanted asked was "And is it your testimony that you didn't have sexual relations . . . ." When the prosecutor tried again, Clinton had his guard up, and he answered "You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations . . . ." That's enough to support a charge of perjury? I don't think so. We basically have to put the pieces of the puzzle together and infer that Clinton lied. Clinton was very careful to couch his answers in a way that he did not have to state whether he touched her or stimulated her. He said that it was not his recollection that he had sexual relations with her as that term was defined and he reverted to his statement that he did not have sexual relations with her. It's legalistic hairsplitting, but if this case was in front of a federal prosecutor, it would NEVER even be the subject of an indictment. (3) He got the date wrong on when his affair with Lewinsky started. Starr, again, cannot quote a single statement that is false, and you have to infer that Clinton's statements taken as a whole were false. As the WH pointed out, this is patently frivilous, and is only relevant because of Starr's further far-fetched theory that Clinton had a motive to lie because he did not want to admit that he had sex with her while she was an intern. Doughboy