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: Doughboy who wrote (7837)	10/5/1998 9:52:00 PM
From: Big D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

The case Of "The Beauty and The Beast".Really??? Then I guess this talk of committing perjury these last nine months must have been about someone else. BTW, I am officially renaming this mess as "The Beauty and The Beast". Not original but it did come from Hollywood where your interpretation of the charges must have come from.

To: Doughboy who wrote (7837)	10/5/1998 10:10:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Good post DoughBoy.. but remember your preaching to the hangman's choir here. Clinton was considered guilty before he took office.

To: Doughboy who wrote (7837)	10/5/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 13994

DougHboy - You're gullibility is perfectly suited for scams - or, if you are a serious investor, you're a liar and/or a hypocrite when it comes to your views of the integrity of those with executive responsibilities. JMO Mr. K.

To: Doughboy who wrote (7837)	10/6/1998 2:36:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

>>Clinton did not lie to the Grand Jury No, he just told falsehoods. And perjured himself as defined below. You should read today's New York Times Lead editorial - they admit that the Dems can't defend Clinton in hearings - the evidence is too compelling. They say the best the Dems can do is ask for censure which will require that Clinton admit that he lied under oath. The NYT wants a settlement that involves heavy censure and an unqualified admission of lying by Clinton. Unqualified. Get it? Regarding the Dem's argument: ...great damage to the American political and legal system would ensue from adopting Lowell's argument that the nation's chief law enforcement officer can swear to tell the truth and then lie for political convenience, to cover affronts to the dignity of his office or to protect his family from knowledge about his personal conduct. All are understandable human impulses, but the rule of law is too important for this country to grant an exemption for Presidential foolishness. nytimes.com As for the argument that he was only lying about sexual conduct, not affairs of state, Schippers pointed out that under his constitutional oath the President cannot pick those legal proceedings in which his word is good and give himself a license to lie in others. The details of the underlying case "are of no significance whatever," Schippers said. "It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced." btw, the NYT gave that Lowell guy a back-handed compliment: Lowell put the opposing view as cogently as possible. But Schippers's stinging recitation of the flurry of phone calls among Clinton, Betty Currie and Vernon Jordan should have convinced the President's lawyers that the last thing they want is impeachment proceedings or a Senate trial on obstruction of justice. Monday's hearing should likewise have convinced House Democrats that the Republican majority will never buy Lowell's theory on the acceptability of miniature lies. Btw, the Federal perjury statute includes failure to tell the complete truth as within the definition. That encompasses convenient memory loss. Clinton, who is known for his memory, had 152 memory failures during his grand jury testimony, about 50% total non recall about events no man would forget.