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: jlallen who wrote (10929)	2/1/1999 5:57:00 PM
From: The Irb	Respond to of 13994

I am proud to be a layman, not a lawyer. Since you asked, I'm an electronics engineer with a B.S. Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science. I respect some lawyers and their accomplishments, and I don't respect other lawyers (e.g. Starr) and their accomplishments. My opinion of any lawyer's record may not be professionally relevant among lawyers, but it's just as valid as any man's (or woman's) opinion when we're discussing politics. Henry Hyde is not sitting in judgment of adultery. Hyde is pressing his case for perjury and obstruction of justice. I fully realize that legal distinction. However, from a political standpoint, Clinton would not have lied under oath in the Jones case if he had not been put in a no-win situation by Starr and the right-wing Republicans. He could tell the truth and hurt his family (which happened anyway) or lie and face the consequences. He made the wrong choice, which anybody can see. Given all of that, the point that I and many Democratic Reps. and Senators have made is that, because Starr's investigation was a partisan witch-hunt from the start, and because Paula Jones' lawsuit was funded by right-wing money, the impeachment allegations are politically driven. Thankfully, plenty of Americans agree with the Democratic reasoning, and best of all, enough Senators also appear to agree that Clinton should not be removed from office even if he did lie under oath in a case that boils down to sexual ethics. And, bringing the argument back round to Henry Hyde, a confessed adulterer like Hyde should not sit in judgement of a case hinging on adultery. The day Salon Magazine published the piece detailing Hyde's long-running affair was the day the Republicans lost the Clinton trial, IMHO. BTW, I think Clinton's behavior has been deplorable, but that alone is not enough to make me call for his removal from office. I don't particularly like his politics, either, preferring a more liberal agenda. Maybe Gore will suit me better, but we'll have to wait until 2001 to find out. Joel Irby Austin, Texas