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: TigerPaw who wrote (23385)	12/20/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<<<I have been on the jury of both civil and criminal cases. In each case there was conflicting testimony. Someone lied. There was never a followup prosecution for perjury. The system of government still survives.>>>> "Conflicting testimony" is not lying under oath. It is conflicting testimony. If it can be proved that someone has lied it is the duty of the court to prosecute. Whether they get a conviction is another matter. <<<<Clinton's testimony was all over CNN for the world to see. He testified about how under advise of counsel he used the narrowest definition of SEX to answer in such a way that was truthfull but not necessarily helpfull. That is not perjury,>>>>>> I do hope you are not going to tell me that the President did not lie. Even Barney Frank admitted the President lied. Lying under oath is the foundation of our judicial system, do you not agree? daverose

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23385)	12/20/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

re: definitions, That was his claim that since it was not his intent to pleasure her, it was not classified as sex. I don't think anyone will buy that one. As for his other claim that none of the acts fell under the definition his lawyers crafted, that turned out to be contradicted by Monica. His claims about not being alone with her also didn't wash. He also substituted the word "relationship" when they asked about "relations" on other occasions, and claimed that he was not perjuring. There are other examples. But the guy is in serious need of psychiatric care.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23385)	12/20/1998 11:23:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

TigerPaw, if the Senate let's him off scot free every lawyer in the country will use the case to protect their client against perjury. Our court system is in enough trouble without adding this element to it. Can you justify why we should ignore hundreds of years of jurisprudence because of this one person? Why risk it anyway! Al Gore will be a decent President, the country will go on. No big deal. I really cannot understand why so many people are anguished over this one person. From Arkansas, to Washington he has demonstrated a willingness to spit on those who would desire to follow the law. From taxes to cattle futures to travelgate, filegate, gravegate, whitewatergate and now monicagate. Why should we as Americans willfully accept this behavior from our leader? He has lied in a court of law, used the power of the Presidency to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses. Disregarding everything else, that is enough to say, enough! Al Gore step up to the plate. And let's move on and create some healing. Michael