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: MacCoy who wrote (34815)	2/21/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: Pat W.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Following you logic, if you shoot at me and miss, no harm was done. Should the "system" look the other way?

To: MacCoy who wrote (34815)	2/21/1999 1:09:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Perjury and obstruction BY THE PRESIDENT is an affront to the rule of law and an attack on our legal system. How exactly were Mr. Clintons' petitions considered correct since he lost every claim of privilege, etc. in the various Courts which heard them and were upheld on appeal (the ones he appealed)? You confuse me. He may not have been indicted and proven a perjurer in a legal sense but impeachment is political not a legal process. He got away with it because politics controlled the "trial". If he's indicted after he leaves office, I doubt he will fare so well in the Courts. In the meantime none of us is required to take leave of common sense to make a judgment (that terrible word) about the character, integrity and veracity of the current occupant of the WH. Impeachment and removal is a political process. I'd submit that his actions apart from the overwhelming evidence of perjury and obstruction were reason enough to remove his sorry butt. In his own word, Mr. Clinton feels that if a President lies to the public, he should resign or be removed. This man AFFIRMATIVELY lied to the American public. He could have refused to comment. He did not. He chose to lie (not about a campaign promise which is to be expected from all politicians)but to save his own sorry butt (avoiding civil liability to pay damages), used his office to bring credibility to his false denials and is therefore unfit to inhabit the office. JLA

To: MacCoy who wrote (34815)	2/22/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I presented my belief that there was great wrong done, but that in full context, with blinders removed, it was not by Bill.>> Not by bill? In full context? Of course. He had no choice, right. Tell that to the mothers of the over 5000 children under the age of five who die every month in middle eastern villages. A direct target of clintons ineffective and unrelated military strategy to "get" Saddam Hussein. Tell that to the Does. Tell that to the innocent Sudanese he bombed in violation of all standards and practices for such things. With blinders removed... You've got several layers to go pal.