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.

Pastimes : PROPAGANDA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (194)	12/24/2000 2:47:40 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 318

Found this little gem on the Bush thread: newaus.com.au Hillary: book deal or book scam? by Gerry Jackson TNA News with Commentary Wednesday 20 December 2000 There are two aspects to Hillary’s book deal that need examination. The obvious one is the clear conflict of interest that the deal involves, not that such niceties ever cut any ice with the Clintons and their rabid supporters, particularly in the media. The second one is a historical perspective that exposes not merely the Democratic Party’s double standards but its inherent viciousness, a fact the recent election vividly illustrated. But first, Hillary’s remarkable windfall. To recover its $8 million dollar investment in Hillary publisher Simon & Schuster would have to sell more than 3 million hardback copies. That would literally make publishing history, at least in America. Does anyone think for a moment that this is possible, least of all her prospective publisher? Yes, if she told the truth about the rape of Broaddrick, the rake offs, the selling of state secrets, the Foster suicide, the White Water scandal, and various other frauds and criminal activities. But of course, Hillary is as big a liar as Bill and just as good. So what gives? Clinton’s devious behaviour certainly suggests the worst of motives. There is a Senate cap of $21,195 on external income. To evade this rule the Hillary cunningly made the deal before taking her oath of office. However, this does not eliminate the conflict of interest that clearly exists. I think there are only two distinct possibilities emerge. The first one is bribery. Viacom Inc. is Simon & Schuster’s parent company. But it also has numerous media interests, including ownership of CBS. It follows that as a Senator Hillary might be to influence legislation in a way that would financially benefit Viacom. But this is so obvious that not even the brazen Hillary could get away with it. Eliminating bribery leaves only political support as an explanation. It’s no secret that those who run Viacom are close to the Clintons. Now $8 million dollars is big bucks in any language and no matter how supportive Party donors have been they are not that generous. In any case, a personal donation of that size is bound to raise far too many eyebrows. So why not contrive an $8 million book deal? The great advantage for this from Hillary’s corporate supporters is that Viacom’s shareholders will be paying for it. She gets $8 million and they get taken to the cleaners. A perfect Clinton scam Now we all know of the appalling treatment the Democrats heaped on Gingrich’s innocent book deal with Harper Collins, with the race-baiting Bonior leading the lynch mob. (Bonior, incidentally, is tied in with the pro-Castro anti-American Institute for Policy Studies). Old Newt was maligned, slandered and then found innocent of any wrongdoing. But it’s not Gingrich’ experience I want to use as an illustration of Democratic hypocrisy but good ol’ Dick Gephardt, the man who has so far refused to concede (I now love that word) the fact that Bush is a legitimate president, not some usurper. Recall when Gephardt was accused of tax fraud, bank fraud and filing false House financial statements? One example of his tax evasion shenanigans was an attempt to evade taxes on a$79,500 capital gain he made on a property deal. Then there was the little matter of $90,000 that was paid in campaign funds to a catering company owned by a developer who had also lent Mr. Gephardt $304,205 to buy property. Gerhard was clearly guilty of serious misconduct of a criminal nature. Yet the ethics committee satisfied itself with giving him a very mild reprimand and then gave Gingrich a tongue lashing. Like Bonior and Hillary Clinton, Gephardt is not morally fit to judge anyone, especially George W. Bush.