From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 02:16:15 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
Message-ID: <19980920072503.29931.qmail@hades.rpini.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On 20 Sep 1998, Anonymous wrote:

>
> In reply to my suggestion that lieing under oath isn't
> a very good reason for impeachment,
>
> Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
> > Of course it's different if you preface your lie with "I swear to tell the
> > truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
> >
> > The oath is voluntary and therefore if broken no claim for duress, only
> > intentional misdirection, can explain such actions.
>
> echoed by nobody@remailer.ch who wrote:
> > ...If some public figure ... goes under oath and then lies, ...
> > he's trying to throw a wrench in the
> > justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under
> > oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's
> > basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press
> > charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes.
> >
>
> I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit.
> But, ... impeachment?

Yes.

We have some jokester sitting in Washington with full authority over our
military forces. The people can't believe a word he says. Congress can't
believe a word he says. He rules by executive order. He ignores the
Constitution.

There is argument over whether he ordered military strikes to divert
attention from his scandal and whether he sold the country out to the Red
Chinese. Now people like myself are thinking - totally justified - that
this guy will do absolutely anything to hold on to his presidency.

I don't feel particularly secure with some guy who I can't trust running
the military and with his finger on the nuclear button. That itself is a
violation of national security.