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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (49449)	6/8/2004 9:08:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793615

But I do know that both Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandals were about precisely this issue. Seems to me that in both of those cases the principals knew that what they were doing was illegal but they were arrogant enough to think the laws didn't apply to them because they were special, important, not subject to laws that apply to commoners. It was about them. This feels different to me somehow, like it's not about them as lawbreakers but about whether the laws of the country are still applicable under the circumstances. There's still the arrogance of thinking they don't have to vet the changes or spend the time going through the process. But it doesn't seem to be about them and their own illegal acts. Maybe that's in irrelevant nuance. Maybe it's not even an apt one. This is just a first thought about something that just feels different.