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: Bill who wrote (8213)	10/8/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Uh huh. Asserting that "no impartial person has seriously suggested that my own role in this matter is legally questionable," the President sought to position himself on the side of greater openness. Mr. Bush said he had asked Mr. Walsh to provide him with a copy of his testimony to the prosecutor, which he would make public. (from Message 5959536, which included the source) Do you think Bush's testimony wasn't under oath? Do you think he told the truth? Lawrence Walsh didn't, and he thought he could make a case of it. Walsh argued that some of these notes would have had to be furnished to Weinberger. They could have led not only to President Bush being called as a witness but to his prosecution for perjury. "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed an official investigation." (from Message 5958110, which again included the source) Now, who exactly has no shame or integrity? Me? Lawrence Walsh? Or does the above constitute more "feelings and emotions", as opposed to the facts and substance you've been so prolific in contributing here? Like, your recounting of that famous "poll" in the form of a tasteless SNL skit?