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 (9045)	10/12/1998 1:44:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Oh yeah? Well, you're a big weinie. 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. This seems to imply that George Bush testified before Lawrence Walsh. 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." This seems to imply that Lawrence Walsh thinks George Bush lied to him, under oath. Walsh couldn't prove it, of course, there was some coverup / obstruction of justice / conspiracy going on. Pretty effective one too, as near as I can tell. Neither of the pieces I quoted were opinion pieces. One quoted Bush, directly. One quoted Walsh, directly. Of course, this is not the kind of "facts" and "substance" you find relevant here. The endless regurgitation of whatever got leaked to Drudge this week, now there's facts and substance for you.

To: Bill who wrote (9045)	10/12/1998 4:13:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Boys, boys......Now, on this Bush thing... As I noted in a previous post, I think that what bothers a lot of people is that certain instances of alleged or suspected Presidential and/or Vice Presidential lying in the past were not investigated as thoroughly as President Clinton's alleged lying has been. They would argue that Bush could not have lied under oath, if he was not PUT under oath, as he should have been. Message 5962783 Moving on the next point. Even if Bush never lied in his life, I fall to see why it is worse to accuse Bush (falsely)of being a liar in the Iran-Contra case, than to accuse Clinton (equally falsely) of being a mass murderer (How many on that list? 44? 54?)? Or do you assume that any charge anyone may choose to bring up against Clinton is automatically true? And please keep the volume down...<g> jbe