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: Richard Nehrboss who wrote (17467)	12/17/1998 9:02:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Richard you are being blinded by your displeasure of Clinton. I am not rising to his defense, I am rising to the defense of the office of the Presidency. The 1974 proceedings set one precedent as to what crime are and what crimes are not impeachable (and the details of the voting are not that critical, at the end it is the Judiciary committee's decision that sets the precedent, and the house that votes on it). The current House's decision (which is no longer in doubt) will set new precedents as to what is impeachable and what not, and they will include errors in tax filing by future President's accountants (the argument will simply be that the person that sign the 1040 is under oath, and it does not matter if the signer did not know the details, go and ask Leona Helmsly (sp?), she spent three years in prison for mis classifying furniture acquisitions as "business expenses" ). You take 20 years of tax filings of any wealthy (more or less) citizen in this country and you will find some reports that could be construed as "lying under oath", the 1974 house said these are not impeachable, now they are going to be. Every future president will have "enemies" and thus be exposed to the same process. Zeev