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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: trouthead who wrote (9724)	12/23/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Junior- Sleazebag Bill has been lying and conning people his entire career, and he was twice elected to the Presidency. I'd call that "getting away with it" pretty well. <<So what is the proper punishment for lying? ... Should all liars lose there (sic) jobs?>> Do we have to hear this canard ad nauseum? First, there is a distinction between lying and perjury. Clinton stands accused of perjury, for which any citizen in this republic risks jail time. There are those of us who think that perjurers and those who attempt to obstruct the very system of justice they are sworn to uphold are not fit to serve in the Oval Office. We respect that office. <<What kinds of lies shall we include in the "job losing" category?>> For starters, how about ones told under oath in a federal court, particularly when your job happens to be President of the United States. Even more so when there is no more elevated motive for this perjury than saving your own butt (eg. no vital national security issue at stake). <<They have harrassed this president in a way I hope I never see again. >> Sleazebag Bill has gotten a relatively free ride. Nixon did not lie in court; he lied to protect his people and his presidency from the actions of others. Had he 'fessed up from the beginning, he probably would have filled out his second term. As it was he was savaged by the news media in this country. If Ed Meese had done a quarter of what Clinton has, there would have been no end to the howling. Larry

To: trouthead who wrote (9724)	12/23/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<<<<In what way has the president gotten away with lying. He has not yet had an actual trial. What is the punishment for lying? Remember he has not had a trial so he should not yet have suffered any legal punishment.>>>>> Junior Balloon: In your reply you has summarized the liberal defense of Clinton and his minions. Of course the fact that Paula Jones was unable to receive fair treatment in a court of law is of no concern to you. The fact that he swore to GOD that he would tell the truth is minor. His act to cover his lying with obstructions and attacks on individuals means noting. These are all felony crimes if convicted. Did you know that the Constitution says that a person convicted of a felony is unable to become President. These are all minor matters but you must admit that they do add up!!!! daverose

To: trouthead who wrote (9724)	12/23/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Greywolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

You prove my point, I mean no disrespect to you but your post show's me all the more how far away from the essence of what is actually transpiring in Washington the country has come. What is at stake here is not lawyers, savvy or the ability to survive political rapids but ONLY the basis for the country's form of government. The founding fathers of the United States Constitution had the foresight to place into effect a document that if adhered to would guaranty all the basic principals that generations of Americans have lived and died for to protect. If you start tinkering with these principals then you are ultimately changing the basis for the country's form of government. That changes are made to a country's constitutions is in respect to changing times and thought pedestrian yet this is done through referendums, elections and other forms of democratic means. The Clinton affair is attempting to to this in conjunction with the implementation of one of the constitutions rules. For sure the president is in no court and is not on trial in the legal sense. Yet the president as the head of a form of government is on trial in the court that protects that government and all who live under it's rule. The guardians of the law that governs the government can not be swayed by savvy, lawyers or even the popular line of thinking at hand.