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: StockMan who wrote (8254)	10/8/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Has anybody here considered that according to the definition of sexual relations in the Paula Jones case, anyone who touched the breasts or groin had sexual relations. I wonder if that makes Gynacologists and doctors sexual relation MANIACS, or if touching someone in a crowd implies having sexual relations!!!!! Each of us could have had "sexual relations" 100's of times with 100's of different people!! Now thats a thought.

To: StockMan who wrote (8254)	10/8/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Hey, Bill himself admitted playing fast and free with the truth by making misleading statements to avoid embarrassment. Of course he lied. The big questions are: a) Did his statements in the Paula Jones deposition and/or the Ken Starr Grand Jury constitute perjury? b) Did his actions after the deposition constitute obstruction of justice? c) If a) and/or b) are true, do such actions constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?" If they're smart, the Republicans will stay away from the complicated perjury issue because it involves lying about sex as opposed to a land deal or a slush fund or politically motivated break in. Plus the more serious crime of lying to a Grand Jury, which is not so clearcut as his alleged lies in the deposition, will be extremely hard to prove. The smart Republicans will focus on the obstruction of justice allegation. They have a pretty good circumstantial case against him. Check out all those phone records in the Starr investigation. As I said before, they don't appear to have a smoking gun--i.e. a letter, tape, or even a witness showing he tried to use the powers of his office to obstruct Paula Jones' lawyers or Kenneth Starr Chamber. But they don't need to meet courtroom evidentiary standards. All they need to do is build a case that can a) muster up enough support among Senate Democrats and b) silence enough swing voters or keep them home in November, and they've got their impeachment. Your belief--and the belief of other hearfelt Clinton loyalists--that he didn't lie ultimately means nothing unless the Democrats gain the majority in the house. Unfortunately for those of us who wish this whole thing would die away, that is unlikely.