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: DMaA who wrote (16700)	12/2/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I concede the perjury>> David I did that before this thread was borne. I did it on the other thread and have repeated it often. If one is going to be credible one can't attempt to defend the indefensible. I just don't think that this was an impeachable offense.As in high crimes and misdemeanors and apparently many Constitutional scholars agree with that assessment. <<Do you stick to the notion that this one perjury was isolated and uncharacteristic and in no way part of a pattern?>> I am not aware of any other perjury on his part are you? As far as his lying I think that he would lie in similar situation again if he thought he could get away with it.I am a realist. I think most politicians would lie to save their skins in a similar situation. I am aware of this when I vote.I don't say it's ok because because others do it. I say this is what we get when we elect politicians it comes with the territory. But I think what you are asking is do I think he can be trusted not to do it under circumstances that may be more significant? Would he lie in a situation on national policy? I don't know but because he lied under oath given questions that I believe never should have been asked in it self does not give me cause to think he would. pez