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: Neocon who wrote (12273)	5/9/1999 11:46:00 PM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

<There is no legal right to choose which laws suit one...> I wonder if we disagree, I wonder if it is only about semantics...Not disagreeing with your statement, I find problematic expressing the obvious relationship that reality has more significant parts than law, or maybe, law is a subset of a greater law--even in the constitution, the people have created the law, and law is subordinate to that relationship still. Conversely, law has ways to bring under itself parts of the greater structure. ... <There was nothing wrong with the discovery process according to the statutes that Clinton himself had signed into law...> per below. <Since Clinton was not materially better off having lied, and yet survived in office, the exception does not seem warranted...> I am surprised you would support the idea that as a country we are better off, or not effected, by Paulagate. Even a lesser Paulagate of sex only. Other scenarios could have played out that would have made a minor ripple only. <Judge Wright warned the President that there would be a lengthy airing of the issues if there were an appeal. That is true, and seems fair enough...> I would be better informed of ... everything. This is not the report I remember reading of the Judge's ruling. I was under the impression she was specifically warning, no actively discouraging, even a veiled threat to, the President away from appeal, both verbally and by the magnitude and nature of the fines. Was there some grandstanding that she would point out the obvious? <PiMac, the thing you seem to have trouble grasping is that they had a right to ask Clinton those questions, that he himself (in effect) gave them that right by supporting the relevant statutes, and that therefore he had no right to have defrauded the court...> The thing I do grasp is that I do not think there was a right to those questions, the Clinton lawyers' thought they had no right, the President thought there no right, the Public--who felt this was all about sex--say they felt they had no right. Further, I grasp that Clinton may have been one of a half dozen people in the world most aware of what the statute authorized or not. I grasp that these issues have still not been thoroughly aired by any Judicial authority but Judge Wright. And, that she could have been wrong is not an unrealistic premise. Finally, Clinton has de facto claimed a right to do as he did. Until that claim is negated by law, it remains a valid claim. Were the claim to be settled, rather than decided, his claim would remain pending, if only for later claimants. What you, Neocon, seem to have trouble grasping is that there is Ever a right to do as Clinton did, ["take the law into one's own hands"] and that it can be accepted as not illegal, perhaps even as perfectly legal.