SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Fangorn who wrote (84420)12/9/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: SecularBull  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 176387
 
~~OT~~

Steven,

I find it funny that the Democrats are pursuing this as if perjury about sex is not an impeachable offense, while the President seems to be denying perjuring himself, at all.

BTW, I think Weld's suggestion today about censure and a fine (that was allegedly rebuked by the White House) was actually a trial balloon. The White House will denounce all attempts to compromise until it becomes clear that he's busted. Then, they'll grasp onto this balloon proposed by a "moderate" (as opposed to a right-wing extremist, sexually repressed) Republican, as what's best for the American people, so the President can get back to work on doing the business that the American people elected him to do. It smells very, very funny to me...

R,

LoD



To: Fangorn who wrote (84420)12/9/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: jim kelley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387
 
******OT********

Steven,

I asked you to cite the "specific statements" of the president that you believe are perjurious. You have not done this. The reason you have not done this is because there are not any statements made under oath by the president which are perjurious.

Instead, you are using hearsay opinions to support your opinion that Clinton committed perjury. Then you characterize any other opinion as ludicrous. Simply put, you are wrong.