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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (24891)	12/29/1998 6:18:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Too bad we couldnt include it in the Starr report because, uh, it doesnt rise to the standard of proof required - but what the hell, we dug it up, its gossip + innuendo - call Tom DeLay and Matt Drudge! And get those weasily worm congressmen on the phone quickly (start with Tom "sleazy" Campbell) to show him THERES MORE! Yes this IS impeachment material. If the Tom DeLays of the party have it their way, there is a good chance the vindictive Republicans will get utterly and hopelessly mired in the "Drudge sludge" of delirious gossip, paranoid innuendo and wild rumors during the course of the Senate trial. Which is good, for when they come out of the cesspool, they'll be stinking to high heavens and that's when they will have to ask the people for the votes!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (24891)	12/29/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You ARE an idiot. The articles of impeachment concern perjury and obstruction of justice. The "sexual escapade" is not the issue. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (24891)	12/29/1998 11:41:00 PM
From: Conscience	Respond to of 67261

Once Again, Mrs. Harris, My very foolish little/big/whatever woman. Did I touch a nerve? Must have. You have proven one thing, you have a nature that requires you to be right no matter how wrong you may be. Let me illustrate..... First, When someone of your nature is wrong, you automatically embellish... First you stated that it cost 40 Million, which is correct according to the GAO. But then you stated it was 50 Million, did you really have any Idea or was that something you heard from a friend? And as I stated, HEAR SAY TESTIMONY IS ADMISSABLE IN GRAND JURY PRECEEDINGS(maybe if I capitalize you may notice it this time.). Having an affair is not and never has been the issue. Simpletons such as yourself have bought into the white house's ruse. If we dis-inform the public enough, eventually they're not going to know what we are arguing about. This case is not about whether or not he should be impeached because he couldn't be faithful to his wife. It has to do with the fact that he lied under oath and used every executive privilege he had to delay Starr from finding out the truth. If your so worried about money, then look at this. If Clinton would have just come out and said, yes I'm having an affair, so what? Then this would have ended Jan 26 of this year. Lets see, that's 11 months at 1 Million Dollars a Month.....He could of saved the country 11 million Dollars, but lets not be thrifty. The Thomas Jefferson thing? Well, you should go back and actually read what I wrote last time, I stated that was common rhetoric, and thank you for again making my point, no it's not ok. But just so you know, there was never any official inquiry about Sally Hemmings till after Jefferson was already dead. So that would make that moot. Next. You failed to mention the FBI's findings at all. The FBI results came back positive. But of course you could disregard the FBI since they could only narrow it down to a chance of 1 in 7.87 TRILLION, THAT THE SEMEN ON THE DRESS WAS NOT HIS(Capitalized again so that you don't misunderstand what I am trying to say, 1 in 7.87 Trillion means that yes, he's the shooter.) Could this be because as long as you don't think about it, it doesn't count? Out of sight out of mind right? Whatever. Next, I used 'misleading' simply as a euphemism. To put in more elementary terms that you may be able to understand, he's nothing more than a damn 'lier'. People like you amaze me, your president admitted that he lied, that he did in fact have relations with Lewinsky. The very second that he stated he had been with Lewinsky shows that he was abusing his power by delaying the investigation as much as possible. He hoped that by delaying the investigation it would go away. He was caught in a lie and couldn't get out of it. Lied...Lied....Lied..Abuse of Power....Abuse of Power....These are the vital, basic, and decisive points that I was trying to make. You never even showed me where he wasn't lying, or where it was innuendo and not fact. Got it this time?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (24891)	12/30/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Conscience	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Once Again, Mrs. Harris, My very foolish little/big/whatever woman. Did I touch a nerve? Must have. You have proven one thing, you have a nature that requires you to be right no matter how wrong you may be. Let me illustrate..... First, When someone of your nature is wrong, you automatically embellish...First you stated that it cost 40 Million, which is correct according to the GAO. But then you stated it was 50 Million, did you really have any Idea or was that something you heard from a friend? And as I stated, HEAR SAY TESTIMONY IS ADMISSABLE IN GRAND JURY PRECEEDINGS(maybe if I capitalize you may notice it this time.). Having an affair is not and never has been the issue. Simpletons such as yourself have bought into the white house's ruse. If we dis-inform the public enough, eventually they're not going to know what we are arguing about. This case is not about whether or not he should be impeached because he couldn't be faithful to his wife. It has to do with the fact that he lied under oath and used every executive privilege he had to delay Starr from finding out the truth. If your so worried about money, then look at this. If Clinton would have just come out and said, yes I'm having an affair, so what? Then this would have ended Jan 26 of this year. Lets see, that's 11 months at 1 Million Dollars a Month.....He could of saved the country 11 million Dollars, but lets not be thrifty. The Thomas Jefferson thing? Well, you should go back and actually read what I wrote last time, I stated that was common rhetoric, and thank you for again making my point, no it's not ok. But just so you know, there was never any official inquiry about Sally Hemmings till after Jefferson was already dead. So that would make that moot. Next. You failed to mention the FBI's findings at all. The FBI results came back positive. But of course you could disregard the FBI since they could only narrow it down to a chance of 1 in 7.87 TRILLION, THAT THE SEMEN ON THE DRESS WAS NOT HIS(Capitalized again so that you don't misunderstand what I am trying to say, 1 in 7.87 Trillion means that yes, he's the shooter.) Could this be because as long as you don't think about it, it doesn't count? Out of sight out of mind right? Whatever. Next, I used 'misleading' simply as a euphemism. To put in more elementary terms that you may be able to understand, he's nothing more than a damn 'lier'. People like you amaze me, your president admitted that he lied, that he did in fact have relations with Lewinsky. The very second that he stated he had been with Lewinsky shows that he was abusing his power by delaying the investigation as much as possible. He hoped that by delaying the investigation it would go away. He was caught in a lie and couldn't get out of it. Lied...Lied....Lied..Abuse of Power....Abuse of Power....These are the vital, basic, and decisive points that I was trying to make. You never even showed me where he wasn't lying, or where it was innuendo and not fact. Got it this time?