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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (17436)	12/16/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18056

Tippet, I expected more from you, you can use civil language just as easily. As for Currie, she was not even a witness or expected to be a witness when BC asked her to "refresh his memory". No normal court would find "witness tampering for acts committed prior to that witness being a witness, why should the Senate find so? Don't misunderstand me, I am not taking a stand that the itchy one did not break few laws here and there, I just do not think that the article of impeachment point to infractions for which the Founding Fathers instituted the impeachment process. I believe that their main fear was an "imperial Presidency" and they wanted to have the means to remove such a future President for exactly the narrow causes they cited, Treason, High Crimes and Other misdemeanors. My interpretation of "other" is simply actions of the same significance to the survival of the Republic as the first two. Zeev