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: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

And you call other people zealous. tsk tsk <<Using illegal wire taps to ensnare someone is illegal, is it not?>> Easy for you to say as if it is fact. If it is a fact, where are the legal charges against Starr. Seems like any legal bozo would have jumped on this even if a little frivaless just to make a name for themself. Nope, just more hot air. As with the rest of your rant. I especially liked: <<Let's all coerce Mothers for the possible testimony they may be able to give from conversations they may have had with their daughters.>>Hahahahahahahahhah I'm waiting now for the one where you claim I want control of your womb or your girlfriends or whatever. LOL <<...that so offends your high moral standards. >> Here is the ticket for me. Stand eye ball to eye ball, wag your finger in my face, lie in a way that discredits the word of others, possibly changing the course of innocent lives forever, and require my cooperation and support through it all, cause your my bubba. Well if that isn't enough just start redefining words that I can go along with to make it easier for me to think as you think. Then I can stop thinking for myself or having concern for the human condition. It's all yours. I had my word and now I have nothing but you. And you are a lying cheat. Gosh Marty, this line you draw as "high moral standards" is pretty SHORT.

To: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

As I have pointed out before, however distasteful you may find things like questioning Monica's mother, they were not illegal, or even unusual by prosecutorial standards. A judge ruled on many of these questions. For example, the circumstances of Monica's initial interview with the prosecutors permitted them legally to discourage her from leaving, and to decline from accommodating her desire to talk to a lawyer. As I have also said, I believe that most evidence that is material to a trial should not be excluded because of allegations against the authorities, but that such allegations should be pursued and punished separately. Thus, I am perfectly consistent in not much caring about these allegations (which, incidentally, most of them are, not proven fact) as they may bear on Clinton's guilt.

To: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 3:05:00 PM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Marty, don't let the turkeys get you down. [although less confrontation might help] As a moral issue only, Bill is in obvious trouble. As a moral question inside a civil liberty issue, these are just tactics forced upon him. The corruption of the law, from the beginning, is too obvious to ignore, and yet there is no exploration of PJ lawyers. No inquiry into errors by the judge. No reprimand for Starr's admitted one sidedness, at the deliberate expense of the whole truth. The political arena was a joke, since based on half-truths. Bill fought the weight of the law gone bad. Alone. Publically at risk. But so far, good enough. For him, and for us all.

To: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 3:50:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

The wiretaps were conducted since Monica claimed to have signed a false affidavit and was tampering with another witness. Hence, the wiretaps were needed to corroborate one witness testimony versus another. Furthermore, the investigation required corroboration of assertions made on those tapes, such as the White House visitation logs, the book receipts, the gifts, and the observations made by the Secret Service. Since they backed up what she said on those tapes, her original testimony and Bill's assertions were nullified. If the testimony wasn't connected with a different, non-sexual harrassment case, one would still need wiretaps to identify who was telling the truth.

To: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Who conducted illegal wiretaps? Not Starr. Not Tripp. Who did them? What illegal wiretaps? Please explain. JLA

To: Marty who wrote (34480)	2/19/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Now Marty, have you forgotten? You were going to tell me which of the morals I posted here that you hate. If I remember right you were concerned about a great number of them. Well, which ones is it? Hmmmmm...Marty, which ones. I am kind of interested in that hypocrisy accusation too Marty. I would like to see some examples of where I've demonstrated hypocrisy in my application of standards. Well, Marty where is it. Let's see, oh yeah, you also mentioned Starr's illegal wire tappings and I asked you if you could show me where he had done that. You know....I don't use terms like "gas bag" lightly. I did call you a gas bag. Now, it appears that one was right on the money. Yep, looks like it.