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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (7513)	10/6/1998 3:27:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<The bottom line was; he never should have had a civil case going against him till he was out of office just for this reason. >> Apparently, this is not the only instance of a sitting President being involved in a civil suit. There have been a half dozen of them, including Teddy Roosevelt. There have also been Presidents that gave testimony during lawsuits, including Reagan. That's why the Supreme Court had no trouble coming to its decision - there was sufficient body of law and precedent to justify it. On one of the talking head shows the other night, one of the hosts asked what action should be taken against a sitting President if it is obvious that a law was broken. The answer was that (assuming everyone could agree that the issue wasn't impeachable - i.e. murder) that the courts should take the case up after the President leaves office, and the statute of limitations should be extended to allow for it. I'd go along with that if there were some way of dealing with people's memories becoming more hazy as time passes.