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: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

Why do you say that? Has he threatened to indict Hillary? JLA

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:09:00 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 20981

GP: Your SI handle really gives you instant credibility on this thread. The facts you present to bolster your case add even more to that credibility. Better watch out, Zoltan! is on his way. :-) jim

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Well, another socialist shows up on the board. I suppose your "environmental" interests makes you a big fan of Gore....HA!!!!

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:17:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

"Partisan rants"? Not one of your brethren can present a reasonable defense for this administration. If Starr is so bad, why doesn't your wonderful president have the guts to fire him?

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:30:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Janet Reno Violates the Ethics in Government Act The Washington Weekly July 19th , 1998 Wesley Phelan Last week the nation came as close as it has in 24 years to seeing the complete emotional and legal breakdown of a presidency. The crisis was brought about by a series of federal court rulings that Secret Service agents guarding President Clinton must testify before a grand jury convened by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr [1]. The utter desperation of the administration was evident in the maneuverings of the Department of Justice, which explored every available avenue for keeping the agents from going before the grand jury. If the agents' testimony supports the claim that the President committed perjury or obstructed justice, it will be the death knell of the Clinton Administration. The court battle over the agents' testimony would then be the equivalent of President Nixon's battle to withhold tape recordings of Oval Office conversations during Watergate from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski (see U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). Most commentators seem to have missed this very important implication of the just-completed court battle . freerepublic.com To read the rest of the article go to the the web site listed above:

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, I have serious doubts that you want to know the truth since in your mind the truth would conflict with your socialist ideology. Remember, socialism led to nazism and communism.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Barr: Carville Could Be Guilty of Obstructing Justice Washington Weekly 7/19/98 By WESLEY PHELAN Interview with Rep. Bob Barr, R-Georgia If James Carville is collecting information on members of the Judiciary Committee in an effort to intimidate them or cause them not to conduct a full and thorough investigation, or to derail the investigation, then it could very well fall within the purview of the federal obstruction statute, says Representative Bob Barr. Judicial Watch has discovered that Carville keeps files on Chairman Henry Hyde as well as on Bob Barr, a member of the Committee. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia has long been one of the most outspoken members of Congress regarding the ethical and legal problems of the Clinton Administration. On Thursday, July 16, House Republican leaders urged members to avoid further comment on President Clinton's personal conduct until the House receives Kenneth Starr's report. After receiving the report, the House will refer it to the Judiciary Committee, of which Rep. Barr is a member. The Washington Weekly caught up with Rep. Barr last Thursday, before the leadership announced the new strategy for dealing with the Clinton scandals. freerepublic.com Go to the site above to read the rest of the article:

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 6:21:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

CLINTON ERODING RULE OF LAW Toronto Sun July 19, 1998 MICHAEL HARRIS The garter-belt is tightening around Slick Willy's presidential neck. But what is less obvious, and far more sinister for the world's greatest democracy, is the rift growing between those who support the rule of law and those who believe in presidential privilege. The media have become the battleground between champions of the Republic and fans of that Caesar with a southern drawl who thinks that his Palace Guard is above the law. Not even in the darkest days of Watergate did former president Richard Nixon put such stresses on seminal American institutions. What can the justice department be thinking? No one in the U.S. legal system believes in the so-called "protective function privilege" that Clinton's lawyers used to block members of the Secret Service from testifying in front of the Monica Lewinsky Grand Jury. The first person to reject justice department arguments favoring a protective privilege was a district federal court judge. After Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that there was "no basis in law" for the imagined, and imaginary, privilege for the Secret Service, the administration filed an appeal. When a three-judge appeals panel upheld Judge Holloway Johnson's decision, the administration appealed again. This time they were rejected by a full 11-member appellate court, which was so unimpressed with the government's case that they ruled without calling for legal arguments. Finally, the justice department forced the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might as well have saved their partisan sophistry; Chief Justice William Rehnquist found that there would be no "irreparable harm" done by having the president's bodyguards answer the subpoenas of independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Attorney General Janet Reno comes out of this looking like the lady who shines Bill Clinton's shoes. Already sullied by questionable rulings touching the presidency, including her refusal to appoint an independent counsel over illegal political fundraising during the past federal election, Reno richly deserves the criticism that has come her way. It is one thing for the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, to accuse the administration of perverting the law for the benefit of Bill Clinton. After all, Hatch is a Republican and a political foe of the Democrats who might be expected to make hay out of the president's difficulties. But when an experienced appeals court judge such as Lawrence Silberman accuses the administration of "declaring war" on Kenneth Starr in order to "protect the president," it's time to start wondering whether Reno has outlived her usefulness as chief law officer of the United States. When Reno writes that having Secret Service agents testify in front of the grand jury would "gravely impair their ability to protect the president and likely lead to a national tragedy," she has abandoned the statute book and fundamental legal principles to take up the trade of presidential spin-doctoring. It is not just that her contention is ludicrous. If standing within eavesdropping distance of a president was all it took to prevent political assassination, John Kennedy would still be alive and Ronald Reagan never would have been shot. JUDICIAL PIMPING And does Reno really believe that if a Secret Service officer were privy to a presidential crime, his higher duty would be to protect the president rather than share his knowledge with a court of law? The truly appalling thing about Reno's appeal on behalf of the president is the repugnant principle on which it rests: That some Americans employed by the government ought to be exempted from the normal process of a criminal hearing. And why? The better to serve El Presidente? Just so completely has Bill Clinton politicized the administration of justice in the United States. And Attorney General Reno's judicial pimping for the president goes all the way down the line. The Secret Service clearly believes that its mission of protecting the president is a higher calling than the normal obligations of other American citizens. Despite the ruling of three separate courts and now the opinion of the head of the U.S. Supreme Court, the men who guard the president are treating their pending trip to the Lewinsky grand jury like mobsters who don't want to talk about it. PREPPY 21-YEAR-OLD How dare John Kotelly, who represents the chief of the president's plainclothes security detail, say that his client will refuse to answer questions on national security and solicitor/client privilege? That's not why Kenneth Starr wants to talk to Larry Cockell. He is not interested in breaching national security or finding out what Bill Clinton talked about with his lawyers last Jan. 17, as he rode the presidential limo to be deposed at the Paula Jones case. Starr is interested in those 37 trips to the White House that a preppy 21-year-old took after being transferred to the Pentagon for "immature and inappropriate behavior." He is interested in whether the president had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, lied about it and then asked her to lie about it. In other words, he is interested in a criminal matter known as obstruction of justice. If any of the 11 Secret Service agents now subpoenaed by Starr know anything about that, it is their duty to tell the grand jury. Judging from their reaction to the Rehnquist decision, that will be an exercise in legal cat and mouse-isms, not a citizen doing his duty in a forthright manner. And that is the nub of the matter. While the Secret Service and the president mouth all the appropriate rhetoric about the rule of law, they are imperilling the judiciary by turning the Lewinsky Affair into a popularity contest between Bill Clinton and U.S. justice. Sadly, they are winning. With every court reversal suffered by Clinton, his deadly popularity creeps ever higher. And why not? The presidential propaganda machine has been stoked up against Kenneth Starr with devastating effect. While most Americans are happy to think of Starr as a vicious prosecutor out to get the president for political reasons, almost no one stops to consider the gaping hole in the White House strategy. If, as Bill Clinton says, he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, why hasn't the Great Communicator simply told the nation what really happened? Demonizing the rule of law is such a poor alternative. freerepublic.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 6:58:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, Does this fit you?????? The Liberal Creed Geraldo Carville 1. I believe that perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance are acceptable if committed to cover up sex in the office, or even to prevent disclosure of embarrassing details about financial deals. 2. I believe that we should have no expectation that this or future presidents will avoid having sex in the oval office with summer interns, based on the fact that Harding, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson were also guilty of infidelity and were not punished while in office. 3. I don't believe that the president is above the law, just above certain laws. 4. I believe the determination about where and when the law is applied should be determined by Times/CNN poll, preferably conducted based on calls to the Geraldo show. 5. I believe that as long as the economy is going well, crimes by government officials should be ignored, unless they are really serious, the decision to be made per item 4. 6. While I thought it was okay from 1980 to 1992, I now believe that the independent counsel law should be abolished, subject to being re-instituted, the decision to be made per item 4. 7. I don't believe that any investigation of public officials should be allowed, if it can be determined that any element of the investigation is political. This determination should be made per item 4. 8. I believe that investigations of Republican adminstrations are by definition not political, but intended soley to uncover the corruption which is inherent in conservative principles, so that principle 7 shall only apply to investigations of Democrat officials. 9. I believe that the constraints placed upon prosecutors in investigations of government officials, and final determinations of guilt or innocence should be determined per item 4. 10. I believe that obstruction of official investigations is okay, as long as it can be determined that the investigator sings hymns and has a sufficiently low popularity rating, as determined by item 4. In cases where the target official is particularly good looking, has bedroom eyes, and can quiver his lower lip, the lattitude to obstruct shall be virtually unlimited. Signed, John Q. Liberal freerepublic.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, Here is an example of the "brilliance" of the democratic party: Marion Berry Quotes "The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather." "I promise you a police car on every sidewalk!" "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate!" "First, it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club! And second, what can I say? I'm a night owl." "I am clearly more popular that Reagan! I am in my 3rd term! Where is Reagan? gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Micheal Dukakis no less." "The laws of this city are clearly racist! All laws are racist! The law of gravity is racist!" "I am making this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?" "The brave men that died in Vietnam, more than 100% of which were black, were the ultimate sacrifice!" "I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery in the 1600's. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican!" "What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?" "People blame me because these water mains break, but I ask you, if the water mains didn't break, would it be my responsibility to fix them then? Well would it?" "I am a great mayor! I am an upstanding Christian man. I am an intelligent man. I am a deeply educated man. I am a humble man!" freerepublic.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17002)	7/19/1998 11:26:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Wrong. As correspondent Douglas said today on "This Week", the Clinton administration is a criminal conspiracy, writ large. But you are obviously a joke.