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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (52040)	3/6/2008 3:57:51 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541685

Seriously, that is an incredibly weak argument. If somebody gave $100 million to the Clinton library (which I believe would have been legal), the public should be able to monitor if that has an influence on Hillary I wasn't making an argument as much as just asking a question....one I still haven't heard an answer to. But I'll respond by saying that it seems to me that what is implicit in your response, i.e. a need to monitor if these contributions have an influence on Hillary, is an assumption that some kind of wrongdoing will be uncovered. All the commentary on this seems to be starting from a premise of assumed guilt. In reality, a release of names is simply that....a list of names. Plus an invasion of the privacy of people like me who contributed simply because we think it's cool to have this library in our state and want it to stack up well with all other presidential libraries. So my question to you is what exactly is it you think this list of people who for the most part made their contributions 6-8 years ago is going to tell you? It's just a list of names. It won't come with a statement from each party telling you WHY they made the contribution. And since these are NOT political contributions...they are personal contributions to a private construction and maintenance fund, I see no logical reason that this list should be made available to the public. If there's a legal reason, then of course. Or if someone has a better argument why my privacy should be invaded, then I'd like to hear it. Since I started this post, I did a little googling. I discovered that there is no legal requirement and other libraries guard their donor lists. More importantly, there is a list of donors contributing more than $1,000,000 already in the public domain. It was first reported years ago in the NY Sun and a year later, a more expanded list was reported in my state newspaper. So I have no idea what the satisfaction is that you get from latching onto these unsubstantiated charges of nefarious dealings by the Clinton. You might want to try and develop just a little bit of skepticism, or at least spend 5 minutes cross-checking one of these accusations, before you make your charges. Instead of dealing in ancient history with all this 'guilt by assumption' that goes on with the Clintons, let me suggest you look for yourself.....don't read someone else's defense....just look at the facts of the Rezko case as reported in the IL newspapers and tell me why you don't see how the Republicans are going to rip the bark off Obama with this? Don't start with any assumption of guilt or innocence on the part of Obama. Just assess the facts to date from the point of view of what a Republican attack machine can do with them.