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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (224985)	3/22/2007 2:37:53 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

You have a point. Clinton had avoidance of criminal prosecution as a motive. It is very different top fire people to avoid personal prosecution than firing people for not prosecuting. Of course, the real question is why should we care about less than two handfuls of losers being shown the door? Democrats in Congress are trying to stir the pot over nothing for political points.

To: one_less who wrote (224985)	3/22/2007 4:07:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For me one of the worst things about the story was tarnishing the reputations of these men and women who were, actually, doing a good job. It's one thing to fire people politically- all administrations do that. It's another thing to fire people to protect yourself or your party from prosecution - but even that I can understand- all people and organizations react defensively to such situations. But what really bothers me is that these apparently decent hard working people were improperly fired, and then when it came to light their reputations were tarnished as an attempted part of the cover up of the original action that may or may not have been legally wrong, but telling the nation these men and women were not doing a good job, when they clearly were, is horrible. IMO, of course. That's the part that really bothers me.