|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Felix how do you know Hillary and Clinton do not have an open marriage.
That they do not consider sex outside their marriage to be a breach of
wedding vows to each other. I mean Hillary is not stupid she was voted as
one of the top 100 lawyers in the country.
As far as the perjury charges Clinton's lawyers would only have fall on the
sword for him. They could say this was their expert legal advise to their
client was for him to lie. He is not guilty of perjury until you prove it
in a court of law, innocent until proven guilty right.
Moral standards, who's standards you going to use here. Isn't that partly
the reason we have separation of church and state. Shouldn't Clinton have
to follow the same rules of conduct as the military because he is the
commander of all armed forces? That term moral standards is vague and
hopefully that can be defined.
The problem here is your imposing the law on Clinton yet this situation is
not in that forum. The House is the jury here and Starr's report would have
never been available to them without cross examination in a normal court
environment. Most if not all of the evidence Starr's report would have not
even been admissible. Even the perjury charges are not valid because
Clinton is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and I repeat that
is yet to be even though its obvious.
The things you say about Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate your assuming
he was just guilty but got out of it some how. So you believe he is guilty
of all accusations ever made about him, you use the law like Clinton
use what you like disregard the ones you don't.
The judge is and should be in my opinion that of the people and through
elections and with this current issue the polls. You say there not
reflective of the truth I disagree. We use more than one polling service
and when they are reflect the same results they will be good enough for the
House and Senate to believe.
So like its been said Clinton is not above the law and he isn't below it
either, and I agree as do most what he did was wrong but is it impeachable
that is a political question not a legal one.
Robert
At 12:35 PM 9/13/98 -0700, Felix TY wrote:
>If he ever resigned, he will be legally in even deeper trouble (jail
>possibly) from other new lawsuits (from many other victims).
>What about Hillary's wrath? Not now,of course but after he is no longer
>is power,but don't underestimate a wounded and cornered Tiger.
>
>Is PERJURY committed? ,Is there anyone above the law? Simply, YES or NO?
>
>Think of this as precendents of things to come," The Clinton defense"
>will be cited in many untold future court cases. Even more money down
>the drain in the(think of it) future especially for the taxpayers. How
>about moral standards in the highest office? Isn't standards even higher
>as status goes higher? Finally, the question of character, if you have
>an employee or spouse who has a consistent and systematic pattern of
>lying (also abuse your trust and a fierce tenacity to defend his actions
>too!)to you , what would you do? How long can you take it? Aha!! just
>two years more !! Huh?
>
>This is not only about sex,but there are previous charges like
>Whitewater,and the different gates where he was able slip through the
>legal net. Yes, it was unfortunate that SEX (an ugly matter , weak and
>yes, not criminal) was used to nail him. But this is like where the
>Mafia is also nailed through only "tax evasion" and jailed despite
>having committed others high crimes like murder and drug dealing.
>
>Okay, I agree everyone should have the RIGHT to protect themselves
>(whatever reason to protect privacy,family,home,Lewinsky, job or life)in
>"whatever" means,but one has still have to FACE the CONSEQUENCES of his
>actions,right?
>
>Or justify example my cousin is being charged in court for robbery, do I
>testify, ahh he is a good father to his children, a good son to his
>parents and helpful to friends and neighbors? Like in context ahh he is
>good to the economy, he is good to my job , he is good to the
>stockmarket, he is good in international relations,he has an honest face
>accent and eyes,he looks sincere and repentant ,ahh because I like him
>his voice,his hair,the way he clothe or even the way he moves
>etc......)(just hitting on the lopsidedness of women supporting him
>blindly)does that mean he can VIOLATE the law?
>
>
>Is the laws of the land applied differently to different people? (Double
>Standards) Shouldn't the LAW be applied to everyone or not at all? I
>thought this was a basic premise of good government and human
>civilization.
>
>
|