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: jim kelley who wrote (28336)	1/16/1999 7:08:00 AM
From: Pat W.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Good morning Jim "Then there were the gifts which Betty had under her bed which she gave to Starr upon request. Where is the obstruction of justice? Not here!" Does it not seem strange, in your opinion, that Betty would have those gifts in the first place? pat P.S. I for one am glad to see the posts becoming more civil.

To: jim kelley who wrote (28336)	1/16/1999 8:55:00 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<<Some observations on the Republican prosecution of Clinton in the Senate:>>>> A beautiful post, Jim. I am hoping the Senators have a generally better recognition of what a prolonged 'trial' will do to the (not too high) public opinion of elected officals. I do not quite understand why its is deemed nescesary for the House to make a public re-iteration to the Senate on all the details of the charges. Do they assume that the Senators have remained in total isolation and ignorance of that 6 year investigation and cannot read the Starr reports ??? Or that the Senate cannot decide on their own which witnesses to call ? The people have voted( twice) and put the peoples choice in office. It appears that the Washington establishment has decided otherwise( Clinton was never a congressman, just a governor). It apears our voting system was designed to do just that, rather than have Congress decide which of their own buddies would be next in line for the Presidency. IMO lawyers are very good at putting a man between a rock and a hard place, in this case forcing Mr C to,lets say, tell less than the whole truth in regard to an affair with a young lady and thus jeopardise our entire country and the judicial system. This affair is often stated to be not a political thing, which is a crock. Where will the congressmen get their funds to run again, if they go against the will of the party? I am not a Dem or Rep, just vote for the man( I voted for Dole), and if G. Bush runs, will vote for him. I rather hope he doesn't run, because its too much to expect of any person to run the country while being harassed from all sides by the %^&$% media as it is today. And to have ones personal life, inluding all past digressions and phone conversations,and videos, put on public display with words. I guess Mr Starrs men could not find a security camera that clearly showed the sexual acts? that occurred or we could watch that on CNBS. Sig

To: jim kelley who wrote (28336)	1/16/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

It's immaterial whether the judge had dismissed the suit later. If you tamper with witness resulting in their perjuring or if you perjure yourself, you are still breaking the law. With your logic, he would be within his right to pay witnesses or threaten them bodily harm to get them to perjure as long as the case was thrown out later. He phrased the instructions to lie as questions to try to obscure their intent. Since each of those questions were falsehoods, they were in fact attempts to coordinate false testimony. He also had stated to the effect that they can't get caught if they all stick to the same story. Court TV has already covered these before. People have been convicted for the above.