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: j g cordes who wrote (8136)	10/11/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

j g cordes, thanks for your thoughtful post. I enjoyed reading it. Let me offer this as a point in the discussion. Laws such as sexual harassment were primarily passed by the Democrats who controlled Congress for 40 years. Paula Jones had a legitimate right to a trial with regard to her alleged sexual harassment suit. Whether you agree with that or not, the fact is the Supreme court ruled on it. The President could have settled out of court. He elected not to. (an incredibly stupid lawyerly decision to me) Because he elected not to settle out of court, the prosecution looked into a pattern of behavior to support her charge. Any lawyer (of which the President is one) knows this will happen. So what does the President do during this investigation? He has an 18 month sexual relationship with an intern in the oval office! This behavior was dangerous in the extreme. He left himself wide open for blackmail by foreign enemies. Not to mention the political consequences to his administration. Think of the judgement that kind of a decision took? Absolutely pathetic! For what? A blow job once a week in the Oval office? While in court and facing charges of sexual harassment, as the President of the United States you have a special trust to tell the truth. It's not an option. You are the highest elected officer of the land. So he lied... Then he compounded that lye by looking directly at the American people and while wagging his finger lied again. Although he continues to deny this, we now know it for sure. The doubt has been erased. It's a fact. So we are left with two choices. 1. ignore the lye, or 2. hold him accountable. In making this decision we have some area's which should be looked at. 1. He is the commander in chief, well then, how do we punish soldiers and sailors who lie? I can tell you from first hand evidence that we hold them accountable. A commanding officer saying to a soldier, I can't trust you anymore is taken very seriously. Their lives are forever changed. We take away their money, we prevent them from advancement, and if it's a pattern of behavior, we discharge them and end their career. Having a double standard, one for the Commander in Chief and one for 20 year old sailors and soldiers to me is incredibly hypocritical. It's simply wrong. Either we as a society believe and support honesty, or we don't. Their is no gray area for me here. And I don't believe there should be. Lying in a court of law is wrong! Period. Wrong! And especially wrong for the Commander in Chief, the one entrusted to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. 2. Nixon, primarily the reason Nixon was impeached was because the American people felt like he lied. President Clinton even said so in an interview then. "If the President lies to the American people he should be impeached". (or works to that effect) So there it is, he himself felt it was wrong then to lye, and that Nixon should be impeached because of it. This does not even include the other charges which we still are not positive about. Namely obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. Of which there appears ample evidence happened. Michael

To: j g cordes who wrote (8136)	10/11/1998 4:07:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

j-g, a couple of well-argued pieces. But in response to the question of what kind of behavior, in your opinion, is impeachable, you have only explained what kind of behavior, in your opinion, is NOT impeachable (i.e, the sexual behavior that led to Jones/Lewinsky mess and ultimately to the charges presented in the Starr referral). The problem is that the House has approved an open-ended inquiry. And there is some reason to believe that impeachment hearings will focus not on Monicagate (which is all that is covered in the Starr referral), but on potentially more "impeachable" gates (filegate, Chinagate, etc.). The Judiciary Committee may possibly rely heavily on a 150-page report from Judicial Watch, which does not even mention Monicagate. And there may be attempts to bring up "murder conspiracy" charges (Vince Foster again), or even "mass murder" (!) charges (remember that list of over 50 "suspicious" deaths that is being so assiduously circulated?). Want to take on the job of expanding your response to include any or all of the above? <gg> jbe

To: j g cordes who wrote (8136)	10/11/1998 11:37:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

j g, I agree with Michael, who put it very plainly: "Either we as a society believe and support honesty, or we don't. Their is no gray area for me here. And I don't believe there should be. Lying in a court of law is wrong! Period. Wrong! And especially wrong for the Commander in Chief, the one entrusted to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution." Not only is lying in court wrong, but perjury is a felony, and our Constitution tells us that felons cannot hold the office of President. That is a Constitutional absolute in regard to the rule of law; it is not a grey area. This is why Clinton, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not admit to having committed perjury. your post included the sentence, "His efforts to disguise his actions have failed..." Interesting word, that "disguise". In what guise did the President present his relationship with Monica? What was his intent in his Paula Jones deposition, when the President stated there was "no extramarital affair" between himself and Monica? We have a strong hint in the President's appearance on National TV: "Let me be firm about this: I did not have a sexual relationship, or any improper relationship with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." end quote. Anyone wishing to devine whether the President intended to feloniously perjured himself in his Paula Jones deposition would have quite a strong hint in those comments. Congress knows its duty. It is a serious one, but one which cannot be ignored, dropped, or censured away.