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.

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

To: SecularBull who wrote (85389)	12/15/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

LOD, you said The really sick thing is that the subject matter of Clinton's lie is all related to his own self-serving interests, and doesn't even have anything to do with anything important. And that is precisely why it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Just as Nixon's attempt to evade taxes didn't rise to that level according to the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. They drew precisely the distinction you draw. And this is might be true also: The reason he can't do that [admit legal wrongdoing] is because he will face indictment as soon as he leaves office, and any further admissions will simply count against him. Which is another reason not to impeach! Are you saying that he's above the law? Of course not. But the following is not true: Nevertheless, he thought it was important enough to subvert the laws, usurp the powers granted to the judicial and legislative branches, argue BS privileges, and deprive one woman of her day in court by lying to a grand jury and then lie again to another. There is not one shred of evidence to support any of those statements. With respect to your first points, 1) the laws in regards to these activities have changed since they happened (with the exception of Iran-Contra) My point was that these were lies told by presidents, and that these lies put Americans in harm's way. There is at least an argument that national security interests prevented disclosure. Now that is the most curious defense of all. The Contras were not fooled by Reagan's denial. The Soviets knew who and what they shot down when Francis Gary Powers was captured, the North Vietnamese knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication. Castro knew about the CIA involvement in anti-Castro efforts, and he knew that the US was a participant in the Bay of Pigs invasion. These were lies aimed at the American people. Nixon tried to hide behind "national security interests" to keep his activities from coming public. TTFN, CTC