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: sea_biscuit who wrote (22343)	12/18/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

No, because with all evidence at your command that misdemeanors were indeed defined as crimes less than felonies, even in the late 1700's, you still insist that there is no distinguishable difference between a high crime and a misdemeanor; once again proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a braying jackass.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (22343)	12/18/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

You've got it wrong. I said that "misdemeanor" had a definition different from what it means today -- its present-day definition being that it is a crime lesser in seriousness than a felony. >> I used "high crimes" instead of "felony?" How is the question I posed to Dan inconsistent with your statement? I think Bob correctly said that it had that same meaning back then. I could assume there is something to your story, but you say that Misdemeanor wasn't considered a lesser offense than a Felony back then, and it sounds rich to me. Maybe it's that punishment tended to be severe in those days, and punishments for Misdemeanors have lightened up since those days. But unless you provide me some evidence, I've certainly never heard that the term didn't ALWAYS represent something less than Felony. But it's moot when the charges here ARE felonies- by definition. Let the Senate prove or disprove. The Presidency has always been in the spotlight. When true charges come to light, they need be faced. Instead, the bad he did to the life of Paula Jones(And I don't care if she were a known harlot) is reprehensible. Because of the spotlight on the Presidency, his actions came to light. His actions. Not just everyone would commit them and that he did-isn't impeachable, plain and simple. But once he denies truth, and allows that citizen who's become involved to be put into a negative light; allowing THAT citizen to be damaged instead of accepting his own part and lot, for nothing but the sake of his own ambition, he has crossed the line of the law, Big Time. Felony. MORE than a high crime. Felony against a citizen. That's it. A felony against a citizen, causing considerable time grief and effort to be expended on her part to see that the light which now shines on her reveals that she didn't do anything. I still think if he'd admitted having been rejected by her in the first place, we'd never have heard her tell of his detailed actions in her presence. But I could be wrong. Because... ...Since she'd told friends far ealier, and the reporters got the story from other principles(corroborating witnesses) in the first place, the details would have been rumors at least. If he'd fessed, and she went ahead and confirmed what the people around her would say she'd told them long ago, then too bad for the President, eh? He has to tell the truth too. She DID keep quiet in the first place, ya know? She didn't want any of this. Dan, she deserves anything she gets out of this, book deals, whatever. Dipy, she didn't set out to embarrass the President- she walked into it. If you prove that she and all the cops and friends of hers who can rightfully testify, have all conspired together with a false story, then you'd have something- until then, nothing. She sought to leave it quiet. They busted her on something she didn't do. Smeared her. But fine, just let him off- all Presidents should be allowed to commit perjury and negatively effect a citizens life, so long as it protects him/her from embarrassment. Yeah, RIGHT!(in the favorite words of R. Nixon, make no mistake, I'm sarcastic here)! History will see right through to his Reality. YUCK!