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 (11320)	10/27/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

You are a prince among men, Bill. I'd say I love you too, but I wouldn't want to put my heterosexual orientation in doubt. There's some doubt about JLA's sex, if s/he chooses to disambiguate as a male, I will renounce my love for him. From fas.org : The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete. Before Bush's election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment in March 1988. This included a review of any exculpatory material that might have shown authorization for their conduct. In the course of this investigation, Vice President Bush was deposed on January 11, 1988. Do you thing an exception was made to the normal deposition under oath procedure here? He wasn't President at this point, but I never made any claim to that effect. And from the NYT article, "Lawrence Walsh's Last Battle", unfortunately no longer available online: With those pardons, Walsh exploded from the careful lawyer's diction and restraints. Walsh lashed out on national television, in words that strongly implied that President Bush's motive for the pardons had nothing to do with mercy but was a craven attempt to save his own skin: "President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant, contemporaneous notes [about Iran-contra] despite repeated requests. . . . " 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." Now, you can read this two ways. Walsh could be hypothesizing that if he got to call Bush again, Bush would commit perjury. Quite hypothetical for the meticulous and methodical Walsh. Or, you could read it to mean that Walsh believed that Bush had lied, under oath, on Jan. 11, 1988, when he testified for the special prosecutor. I'd say that the second is a more straightforward interpretation. So, IN MY OPINION George Bush PROBABLY lied under oath. I put a lot more stock in Lawrence Walsh as an investigator that Ken Starr, there was none of this "secret" grand jury business that Starr played so assiduously, and none of this "lock'em up till they say what we want them to say", as Starr's still playing with Susan McDougal. I've presented my evidence, but of course the Iran/Contra coverup never ended, so there's no "proof" in the sense of a legal conviction. But what "proof" do you have of me lying? For me to be lying, it would have to be untrue to say that George Bush lied under oath. Do you have some evidence that Bush told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true, when he was deposed Jan. 11, 1988, to testify before Walsh's investigation?