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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18808)	12/12/1998 7:05:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

>> I don't know, my take was always STOP THE INSANITY! Well, that raises you squarely to the impeachment camp. You are cured, if it is not an act.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18808)	12/12/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No, it was not Starr who ruled. It was a "recently unsealed decision by..." anybody? I believe it was a federal Appellate court. Jones appealed. Otherwise it was a dead issue, and she'd get nothing, no? He expected to lose, correct. Expected to lose against HER appeal in the end- just as you've relayed it from the article you read. At any rate, just as you say- Clinton knew the case would go forward- and that's in part because the arguments you've posted were not expected to hold any water in the courts. What happened simply did happen, and your characterization of reality as my "supposition" is silly IMHO. Yes, there is no admission of guilt, quite correct!- which fact is a legalism signifying little or nothing to unbiased observers in case after settled case throughout history. You take a very WEAK stand there! But you choose to hold tight to your legal thread of a favorable to Clinton view- and that's your right- but your right to do it doesn't add any water to the position you stubbornly hold. As for my last sentence, it's MY right to have the opinion that Clintons actions are an affront to American Women. You are so politicized that you scarcely realize that if only Clinton were a Republican- Democrats, Feminists and You, would all surely be harping endlessly and rightfully so, making MY current argument over and over, and you'd win- you'd get rid of that President. What's sad is that Republicans fail to arouse the public disgust over these issues as Democrats would if the situation were reversed. Your offhand "guess" about my views is quite wrong- o ye of the stereotype foundry of unfounded innuendo and assumption. Not only do you dismiss the large numbers of women who DO feel as I do about Clinton, but in fact, I support Choice for abortions! I sir, am proud NOT to be a Republican- even if many of them are pro-choice too. You should be ashamed of having defended for even a second the lies and defamation Clinton knowingly allowed to touch the lives of Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and...who's next?....Let's not forget Hillary. This won't be forgotten by history, and like Nixons defenders in Watergate- you'll be shamed for your refusal to realize truth until it was too late. Men who treat women badly come from ALL parties...We've got one in the White House now.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18808)	12/14/1998 4:11:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 67261

By the by, it was a Federal Appeals Court that ruled the Clinton perjury may have materially affected the outcome of the Jones case. Kathryn Crier of Fox News threw this fact in the face of a Democratic Congressman Sunday when he stated "the Jones case is irrelevant since it was dismissed!" To her further query as to whether future perjuries in sexual harassment cases should go unpunished, he replied that there "WAS" a remedy for the Jones case- "Clinton paid 850grand he didn't have to pay." I feel this last is laughable. History will recognize that had Clinton's perjury gone undiscovered he would have achieved an obvious desired result- NO PAYMENT TO JONES! So if the case against Clinton is Sexual McCarthyism, then what do you call Clinton's perjury proffered against the Jones case- a righteous act of self-defense? Should perjury and witness tampering by defendants in sexual Harassment cases go unpunished in the future? Do you really want to defend actions such as this when committed by a President or anyone? Ok, fine! Enjoy your liberal enlightenment- I just think the train of liberalism left you sitting at the station somewhere back there... . The man went to elaborate lengths in an attempt to squash the Jones case. :-) Clintons ultimate removal would be a great victory for the anti-sexual harassment cause. Piggy men(and being a pig may not be impeachable in and of itself) may think twice before acting on their instincts in the future. But if we allow Clinton's Perjury to slide...should men not fear being caught perjuring themselves in such cases? The Lewinsky testimony could scarcely be more pertinent to an attempt to corroborate the Jones testimony relating his actions in her presence- thus bolstering greatly the notion that she testified knowledgeably and truthfully of his particular proclivities/actions. Hence and fittingly polls show most people now believe the Jones testimony. This also may make his denial of remembering her as implausible as his denial of inhaling marijuana and then some! The public change of heart concerning the Jones testimony must be a major factor in CNN poll results indicating over Half of the people don't care if he is impeached- whether they want him to be or not.