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 : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (554)	12/22/1998 10:44:00 AM
From: Bald Man from Mars	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Folks, everything is pale in comparison to Impristine's ... you will see positions that you never know exists ... Straddle, strangle, Spreads of different types ...

To: pezz who wrote (554)	12/22/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

A couple of points pezz. The liberal women's groups along with Clinton himself signed into law legislation that permits the asking of historical sex partners in sexual harassment law suits. That is why the other women were "dug up". It's part of the standard procedure thanks to Clinton. So the Monica questions were ruled fair game by the presiding court. On Livingston, your point is that he might have lied were he put under oath too. We'll never know that, it's speculation on your part to try to minimize the crimes of Clinton. But if you want to compare, Livingston is NOT the president sworn to uphold the laws. Clinton is. Livingston can be prosecuted but not impeached, but Clinton can (and has been). He needs to be involved in a sexual harassment or rape legal procedure to be asked those questions. He wasn't, but Clinton was. And as a congressman, Livingston never had the resources to mount a protracted obstruction campaign or launch military strikes to divert attention. Clinton has the resources and may have used the military to divert. There is no comparison.