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: j g cordes who wrote (11608)	2/12/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: Andrew Martin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

First things first jg. Go fix your F-ing links. You've double entered the http:// Secondly, as someone who has not only studied the law but has spent time investigating and enforcing it as a criminal investigative officer within the federal government I'm through listening to what you believe the law, judgement, verdicts, etc. are. You are being obstinate now. We are not talking about tort or even civil law here you wonker. Criminal law is supercedant to both and is defined by little thingys called elements. These elements mark the manner and degree by which a prescribed, published and definitive criminal code (The Law) is violated (the crime). Only evidence (fact) is permitted to substantiate or repudiate an alleged violation of criminal law. No spilled coffee allowed. The crimes which are defined in USC (federal law) are legal codes (laws) and are defined by specific, factual elements which Are Not disputed or even arguable. No one can change the elements of a crime to suit their own actions. They can only argue their actions do not correspond to the elements of the particular law they've been charged with violating. There is nothing circumstantial in the definition of criminal laws. They are defined by factual actions. The issue with a violation of criminal law is whether the 'circumstances' of a particular action committed by the accused meet the elements of the law as defined by the federal criminal code (USC). In the case of the president it is admitted by both the Democrats and the Republicans that the elements for violation of criminal law were met. The president is therefore Guilty of the crimes he was charged with since his actions admittedly fulfilled the elements of the crimes. Even his defense did not dispute the case upon the elements. The Clinton defense was: "Yes, my client committed the elements of these crimes but he should not be found guilty of having committed them". Verdict -Not Guilty. There's your "judgement" and it is entirely circumstantial to the preservation of the State's authority at the expense of truth and the law. Congratulations.