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: mrknowitall who wrote (7929)	10/8/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: John Lacelle	Respond to of 67261

mrknowitall, Did you or anyone else notice today that Bill Clinton was sounding defeated? I think he may resign after this Impeachment vote in the House of Reps today. Nixon resigned at the same point because he realized that he didn't have enough support in Congress to survive the hearings. I think that Bill Clinton may have just figured this out himself. He probably needs at least 100+ votes from Democrats to feel that he can stay in office but some early polling indicates that he may only get between 30 and 60 votes to stave off hearings. That means he is toast! -John

To: mrknowitall who wrote (7929)	10/8/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

No matter how many times you cut and paste the diversionary WH spin machine dogma, you'll notice it never attempts to refute the fact that the President is dishonest. Yes, the President is dishonest. Is that a Presidential attribute unique to Bill Clinton? Presidential impeachment has gone as far as it's gone so far 3 times in history. With Andrew Johnson, it was clearly a political matter, yes? With Nixon, the things that lead to impeachment very clearly had to do with Presidential actions in the electoral and political realm. With Clinton, there's this personal sex thing, and resisting the Starr inquisition. With Iran/Contra, there were fairly obvious Constitutional issues involved, and much more in the way of coverup and lying, but impeachment talk never went anywhere. Clinton a proven liar? Dougjn has argued the perjury case is far from clear. He seems to have a lot more legal knowledge than you do, or any of the rest of the Clinton bashers here. Me, I will state again, being evasive in a politically motivated, currently moribund civil suit just doesn't seem like the "treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" the framers were thinking of. Others differ, that's their right. Iran-Contra seemed like a weightier matter. You find that irrelevant? Ok, we disagree. You want to hurl invective, get in line behind Mr. Vaughn, with his curious definitions of "lying", "facts", "substance", and "ranting".