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: Les H who wrote (12307)	5/10/1999 8:36:00 PM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Les, I am beginning to see Clinton's point. Choosing to lie, vs. other contempt actions. [Having decided the court was in error and to pursue not cooperating with that error] yields two results: Caught, and subject to the law again. OR not caught, and "gotten away with". Not getting caught would have no legal repercussions. It didn't happen if none know of it. That means the decision to commit x-crime depends on the criminal's morality. If doing the crime and getting away with it results in a moral 0 or plus, then where is the problem with whether the action is defined a crime? Since none know about the crime, the morality used to judge -,0,+ is also unimportant to any but the criminal. Outrageous enough yet? Whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound when none hear it is the topic of this choice. Obviously more than bargained for in this post. Now suppose by doing a crime, it was in fact, no crime. What if there was a mislabeling done by the legal system? This is a separate supposition than supposing the law was immoral--not in this example. If the system is incorrect, and say admits to being incorrect, but later, then what you are doing is no crime. To get this reconsideration of whether a crime, or a mistaken system, suppose you had to commit a crime. You would be a criminal, temporarily, although, retroactively never a criminal at all. Given the assumptions, which facts I am not privy to prove, Clinton's actions at court can be seen to be both moral and legal. Right now, we are only at the place where Clinton is deciding to exonerate himself or punt. He has never presented his case to a judge on his justification for his misleading testimony. No one yet has the facts! The number of people who find him guilty without the facts astounds me. The number of those who claim to support the law makes me more than nervous.