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: Zoltan! who wrote (11182)	10/25/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>> That article came from the Los Angeles Times!!!. And just when we thought you could read, too. I stand corrected. I admit the post was so long and boring I didn't get to the bottom, where 'the Times' identity would have been revealed as the LA paper by noting the organization portion of the URL you provided. I forgot there was more than one right-wing Times in this country. Mea Culpa. However, I think you contradict yourself. You had just decided I had no mind at all, so I think it would be unfair to expect me to read. I notice you decided not to reply to my comment that 115 cases, by your own claim, out of a few million witnesses, (and a hundred million taxpayers) would not seem to be a lot of sentences for perjury relative to the frequency of the offense. (Or by the standard of the percent of politicians or philanderers who may lie a bit.) And that the president would be one of those so honored seems a bit odd unless this is what it seems, a show trial. I will take this as tacit acceptance of my point. >>> committed serial perjuries before a criminal grand jury. I expect you mean supposed perjuries before the Starr grand jury, in the video tape? I thought your current theory was that this tape showed he had perjured himself in some previous event. What are you talking about, exactly? What statements to the grand jury? BTW, I am looking forward to the first case of committing simultaneous perjury. I expect the being who achieves that to have interesting anatomy. >>>civil sexual harassment case filed under a Federal Civil Rights I thought that the Paula Jones case was filed under Arkansas state law, in a civil court. That federal criminal proceedings were filed under the Civil Rights laws, would be news to me. Can you back this assertion up? >>> Your pitiful exceptions show that you have no legal mind, no mind at all. OK, Caped Crusader. Rock on. And have another toke. Say hi to Batman for me. I love both of you guys. Ciao, Chaz