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: 1SFG who wrote (10096)	1/6/1999 2:50:00 AM
From: Andrew Martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

"where the idea to save Monica's dress really came from." Kinda takes admiration to a new level doesn't it? If you consider the material may likely have been originally deposited somewhere else (higher up) whereupon it subsequently collected on her dress then I think you'll appreciate her desire to preserve it. It is obvious they admired each other. I think you get the picture here.

To: 1SFG who wrote (10096)	1/6/1999 2:52:00 AM
From: dfloydr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<I will wonder where the idea to save Monica's dress really came from. >> Given Clinton's reputation, I am surprised that more women have not kept some evidence to be used when he eventually turns on them .... he has done so so often even fools must have known he would deny anything and everything if ever a problem arose. Call it basic self preservation instinct.

To: 1SFG who wrote (10096)	1/6/1999 3:52:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 13994

<<I really don't fully understand if what he has done are impeachable offenses.>> I can only say as others did early on- an impeachable is what the House says it is. The house has spoken. It's done. It's impeachable. I would like to note here that the term "high" in high crimes and misdemeanors probably refers to the high office in which the crime is committed. There was some reference- by Hamilton I believe- to this effect, wherein he said that a crime that would be easily forgettable when committed by an ordinary citizen- becomes grave and grievous when committed by a President in his high office. The President was expected to be one of the best among us, while mere average House members were expected to be quite ordinary. Consider- have you ever heard of any other reference in law- before or after the constitution was written- to the classification of crimes as "high?" ...how about "low?" Anyone? ? ? ? By this standard it would be logical that "low" would be worse than "high"- it's silly, no? But lo, there is reference that "high" means the stature of the office held by the perp! And this is more than a misdemeanor, for sure I might add! In essence the phrase means, literally ...other crimes and misdemeanors committed by the holder of this "high" office.