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 (20058)	12/15/1998 7:42:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

Yeah...but still...you didn't do badly based on your seeming inexperience. Don't worry though...you'll improve.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20058)	12/18/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes, Bob obviously calls names as much as his opponents. But here I think he meant maybe you'd have something substantive to say for a change. So DO you believe Dipy's statement is correct. DID "misdemeanor" have a definition meaning less than high crimes at the time the Constitution was written? Name calling is common here, and when it exists without other comment of substance at all, I can take it you've admitted defeat on the issue(though denying same by name calling- useless words). This is not sex police. This is Paula Jones- who hoped the one man with the knowledge to clear her name might do so. He refused- and denied ever meeting her. Evidence indicates he DID meet her. Evidence indicates her ability to identify his wee wee caused him to negotiate a settlement in earnest. He extended his lies throughout the events leading up to and surrounding her suit. Paula Jones is a citizen. His actions designed to deny her credibility were extensive. We all are aware of that now. He committed perjury concerning Lewinsky because the details are corroborative of the original Jones detail of her visit with him. The main difference is Lewinsky was willing. She said he looked down at his crotch area and she, knowing what he wanted, dropped to her knees whereupon- he unzipped himself, offering himself to her. CORROBORATIVE! But don't believe Jones, fine! Whether she lied is irrelevent anyway. He very nearly got out of the Jones case without a settlement at all. He nearly accomplished this NOT by showing she had no evidence that he'd ever met her as was once his claim, but rather by LYING IN COURT to the detriment of this womans case. This is not government as sex police, it was a civil case between citizens. The lengthy and long standing actions of this President against this citizen are indefensible. Perjury remains one of the highest felonies. I never thought I'd see the day that Democracts would defend such extreme actions as this,taken by a President, against a woman and her civil sexual harrassment case. All Democrats have openly deplored his actions. Are they commenting on his sexual behavior only? What business is that of theirs? Do they want to officially censure him for that? Or do they mean to say that it's too bad JONES was wronged by his perjury, but let's forgive the perjury against a citizen by a President? Why don't they just say this? Is it forgiveable because it's just a personal sexual matter? Will they forget that he allowed this citizen to be dragged through mud for his own agrandizement? Why don't they admit this? Not one of them has noted the reality of this. Shame shame shame. The only legal reason they have for taking congressional action/censure is based on the CRIMES IN COURT committed! Otherwise, they should HUSH any DISGUST over his behavior and leave it in the past. They are always deploring his behavior while excusing his perjury. WHY? Let's tell them to SHUT UP about his behavior! If they want to let him off on Perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of Justice, and so forth, then SHUT UP ABOUT BEING OFFENDED BY HIS ACTIONS. His CRIMES IN CIVIL COURT are clear felonies- based on the evidence assembled by BOTH sides as it exists. Let the Senate judge. These crimes against the case of another American Citizen rise far above ANY definition for the term HIGH MISDEMEANOR. I can't believe Democrats would try to dismiss actions such as these against a woman, legal crimes quite beyond the acts alledged themselves, as inactionable! History will see plainly. "If the President committed perjury in a CIVIL case, that would certainly be impeachable"----Daniel Patrick Moynihan