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: PiMac who wrote (12437)	5/13/1999 8:21:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 13994

All right, one more try before I go back to my original opinion that it's a waste of time to try to debate with you: "I think I understand your objection." No you don't: "His choice of action was not do I do a successful lie or a failed lie. His decision was weather (sic) to lie." This is true. The whole exercise of "successful lie" vs. "failed lie" is something that we got into in debating your notion of lying as an objection. But clearly that wasn't what his decision involved. "Since both sides of the if turned out as he thought they should, it was an acceptable decision." NO IT WAS NOT! This seems to be one of the basic facts that you're just not getting. It is never acceptable to lie under oath. Expedient it may be, but it's always dishonorable, callow, and most importantly, illegal. "As a principle for everyman conduct, there arises the issue what if he has a successful lie. Then he is cleared, and Paula is out the settlement money. Maybe that is how it should have been, in perfect verdict." Are you insane? You're actually saying that the perfect outcome would be for a U.S. citizen pursuing a Supreme Court sanctioned civil suit to lose because the President lied in response to questions that are permissible under rules of evidence that he himself had signed? A lie (under oath, which is perjury, which is a crime) leading to exoneration would be a perfect verdict?! Would that you lived in such a world. Just leave the rest of us out of it. "Had he not been hassled by Congress about a Judicial matter..." From the Constitution, Art.1 sec.3: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." "But if he decided to screw Paulas fair verdict of he is guilty, then his lie would be bad, bad, bad. Can we assume he had any reason to believe his lie would not be found out? As President, with the target highlighted, can there be reason to doubt he would be caught. Then bad,bad,bad is not an option in reality. So only a failed lie would happen, and only a failed lie could be considered an objection." So we're back to this. It certainly seems as if you're saying that, assuming that he was going to get caught, lying was an objection to the "illegal" discovery (that remember, Bill Clinton himself had signed into law). Okay, since I still haven't been able to get through to you, try this... If his lie was a form of protest, and it had served its purpose when it was exposed, then why did he continue to repeat that lie outside of court and get all of his lackeys to repeat it for him for months? Why did he only come clean after the dress surfaced? I grow tired of this. If you can't come up with anything other than nonsense, I'm done... -BLT