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: Machaon who wrote (22232)	12/18/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Let's talk in terms of reasonable doubt.>> There have been a lot of accusations about bc. Many have come from the does in his own back yard, not his political opponents. He is the one that keeps coming up as a liar. If I did not see him lying so convincingly to me, you and the rest of the country on national tv, I could probably still harbor some "reasonable doubt." Conspiracies aren't always just a term used as a political ploy, sometimes they really do happen. The key here is the word reasonable. Reasonable does not mean beyond all posibility, it means with human reason does this scenario seem likely or doubtful and where I have doubts which are reasonable and which are unrealistic. To me (a non partison player) it is reasonable to believe rather doubt that a guy who's a proven liar in some situations is a liar beyond reasonable doubt in the face of all the uncontested evidence in this situation. The question then for me is simply a matter of law, not reasonable doubt. Does the law support impeachement for perjury and obstruction of justice or not.

To: Machaon who wrote (22232)	12/18/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<This is an issue of law.>>> Which you continuously dazzle us with your ignorance of. <<<And you are a proponent of law and order, right?>>> Whereas you aren't. <<<Then, you would have to admit that the main issue of the impeachment hearings is whether or not President Clinton is guilty of impeachable offenses.>>>> Robert Barry : "high crimes and misdemeanors...hmmm...perjury is a felony which is a high crime and high crimes are impeachable ...damn...I can't figure out if perjury is impeachable." <<<The majority of the American people do not think so. >>>> Sorry, but the court of public opinion has nothing to do with the application of law. <<<<Many constitutional scholars and experts do not think so.>>> Any many do think so including one who is a member of Congress and teaches for one of the most liberal universities in the country. But regardless, the court of public opinion has no bearing on the law even when it comes from scholars. <<<<Let's talk in terms of reasonable doubt.>>> Translation : "Let's begin with the bllsht...." <<<<Being totally impartial; >>>> Which you'll never be. <<<if so many fine, upstanding, honorable, friendly, wonderful, spiritual and dedicated individuals think that Clinton's "alledged" offenses might not be impeachable, it raises reasonable doubt, especially regarding the Republican Party's interpretation of the Constitution's intentions.>>>> You're a desparate schmuck who's looking toward the folks who glorify Jerry Springer as being educated on Constitutional law. <<<If there is reasonable doubt, we must not remove a democratically elected President from office!>>>> Reasonable doubt is not established by "opinion". It is established through the dispute of factual evidence. If you're going to obfuscate, at least use an intelligent obfuscation.