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 Survey "Resign" Yes or NO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: del clark who wrote (682)	2/11/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 697

Ok. Thanks for acknowledging that polls do show that at least 70% of Americans believe the President is guilty of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. <<You can not have a lie with out a subject or object to lie about. In Wateregate the lies and perjury centered around a bungled burglary. The burglary was illegal. Getting a Blow Job is not.>> In Monicagate, actually I like to think Jonesgate, the subject was false testimony in a civil case. The testimony was illegal. Then later, the President goes before a Grand Jury and claims his testimony was "true." Most Americans see through this. At the level you try to delineate, there really is no difference. These realities will not be forgotten. Clinton will be remembered not just as some unfairly hounded bloke who just wanted a blow job, but also as a womanizing perjuring liar as I've already described it here- which is backed up by overwhelming poll results. History will represent both sides clearly. School children will giggle, but they won't simply think of him as wrongfully hounded- not by a long shot. Just as the people now largely believe, historians will say that Clinton certainly committed Perjury and Obstruction of Justice but got off(no pun intended-hehehe). They'll go through the same arguments over whether it was impeachable and they'll disagree with each other. But then as now, it will be said BY MOST BY FAR that he was certainly guilty of the crimes charged against him. As our exchange bears some witness, Democrats haven't quite absorbed the reality of this. Mainstream America is far more realistic than is partisan core party opinion. <<The democrats didn't have as much of a dislike for Bush as the conservatives have toward Clinton. For the conservatives to now say that "well they would have done it to us" is juvenile at best.>> The problem with this is that you don't yet realize how little "hate" is at the bottom of this. Clinton is a simple man who has created his own reality. The 84%, or 70% if you wish, who believe he is guilty of Perjury and Obstruction are not Clinton haters- most of them want him to stay in office. They see the truth. They disaprove of Republicans in this matter- they have not been duped- they know guilt when they see it. It is not unreasonable for the law to demand justice from a President who has now been shown to lie about so many women. There was an adultery charge against Bush back when he was President. It was a rumor. Someone had said someone else had told them of it. That scrap of a story hit all the networks. Network Anchors spoke in ominous tones while holding off judgement(LOL- amazing how quick to jump they were and how ominous and serious they did sound) Within 48 hours it was determined it was just a story falsely told and taken for true by the hearer, a story with no foundation what-so ever. Yet this bit did hit the airways immediately! What's juvenile is the notion that Democrats wouldn't attack Bush and hound him out of office for lying against a womans case in court. Look what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas! Also juvenile is the notion that Republicans shouldn't try to bring Clinton to justice over sex when it IS after all, ALSO ABOUT PERJURY AGAINST A CITIZEN IN COURT. Clinton has indeed been very bad to women in his life- except when they appreciated the sex, of course. <<The Puala Jones case was settled out of court for political reasons. The case was originally dismissed because Paula Jones could not show damages. Whether Clinton lied under oath would not have affected the decision of the Judge. The judge almost went as far as to say Jones damage claims were false. >> The political reasons were that the case was going to go forward. Evidence from officers who often took him women would have been heard. The speculation that JOnes could identify his "bent crank" if Clinton could get a hard-on in chambers for the judge would be laughed about. In this he said/she said case, his reputation had been tarnished by two women who proved the President lied about his activities with them, namely Flowers with her tapes and Lewinsky with her dress. Many other believable women(and likely honest, I've got to believe, don't you?) would have been trotted in. The President had a "hisory", a rap sheet. These were the political reasons for the settlement. His case was actually weak in many ways and his lawyers knew it. It's not good for a man in a he said/she said to have "priors" on record. I repeat, a Federal Appeals Court has ruled last fall that Clintons withheld evidence may have materially affected the Jones Dismissal. Without the Dress and the Presidential admissions, there would have been no appeal and no settlement. This much will also be clear and noted by Historians. Republican hatred truly has a small role in these events. The Jones witnesses, officers and friends and co-workers, only would have related the true events they were party too. Clinton has made his own reality. It's truly his doing above all. Historians will indeed note this well, among all the rest your side has to say. ...and in the future- as polls show now- the vast majority will believe the man was guilty of crimes. He is- JMHO...but among a majority this time.