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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (9087)	3/1/1998 7:17:00 PM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

<<<I ask again: how would YOU feel if a guy with an expense account that runs to the tens of millions decided to check YOUR life out? Something tells me you wouldn't like it. At all.>>> Janice, I really don't think I have that much to hide. However, If I had robbed your villa, you happened to have a video of it, the cops had my fingerprints on everything, and had found stolen goods missing from your place after the theft, in my hut, I hardly think that my wagging a finger at the prosecutor and telling him that I want to make it perfectly clear that I had nothing to do with it, would satisfy you. When an effort to provide any of your evidence was offered it was somehow held up on the grounds that it may be inadmissable for Blah Blah Blah reason . Something tells me you wouldn't like it . At all. russell

To: Janice Shell who wrote (9087)	3/2/1998 2:42:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

And as noted previously, special prosecutors assigned to investigate public officials should be restricted to investigating ONLY matters having to do with said officials' conduct of their office. Anything else can be dealt with through ordinary channels. Wanna go after Clinton for illegal campaign contributions? Okay. "Travelgate"? Not so sure. Whitewater? No. Adultery? Certainly not. That is a position I agree with. The govt is not there to run Gestapo operations against politician. The people's elected officials arrived at their office by a vote of the citizens, and no matter how disagreeable a politician's personal life is to some other politicians, the govt shouldn't be used to run smear campaigns. Which brings me to an oft-repeated point of mine: When the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, there were witchhunts conducted into the personal lives of both of Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood. Bob Packwood's diaries were subpoened by Congress, and exerpts of his diary containing the juiciest sexual items were published in our local newspapers. This was done with the full approval of the Democrat controlled U.S. House and Senate. While, as noted before, I may not agreed with Packwood politically, what they did to him was reminicient of Germany starting in the late 1930's. There is a LOT of anger left over from both Thomas and Packwood's treatment by the Democratic Congress, therefore I admit that the current troubles of the Clinton Whitehouse do little to evoke much sympathy from me. Perhaps if some of the key senior Democrats who handled and approved of the prior privacy violations of Republicans were to issue some sort of apology for wrong-doing, some of this anger may abate. To my knowledge, no Democrats in Congress feel any sense of shame or guilt for their part in past witchhunts and violations of privacy; indeed, they have not even admitted any wrongdoing.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (9087)	3/2/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

>>And as noted previously, special prosecutors assigned to investigate public officials should be restricted to investigating ONLY matters having to do with said officials' conduct of their office. Anything else can be dealt with through ordinary channels. Wanna go after Clinton for illegal campaign contributions? Okay. "Travelgate"? Not so sure. Whitewater? No. Adultery? Certainly not. The expanding investigation is not at all Starr's fault, it is a reflection of Clinton and the law. The actual difference between this investigation and others is that no IC ever experienced a President so globally corrupt. Look at virtually any aspect of Clinton's life and you'll find corruption. The IC statute mandates and compels the IC to follow the stench. It is wrongheaded to decry Starr when it is hardly Starr's fault that Clinton is the biggest stinker to come along.