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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (129)	8/2/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Enough rubbish. Answer the question.

To: pezz who wrote (129)	8/2/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

When virtue no longer matters Ottawa Sun August 2, 1998 By R. CORT KIRKWOOD not for commercial use Finally, independent counsel Ken Starr's grand jury is going to hear from Monica Lewinsky. It may even hear from Bill Clinton himself on Aug. 17, for he has decided not to fight Starr's subpoena for testimony about his affair with the 25-year-old airhead. The seemingly interminable wait for these developments says a lot about the law and how it is practiced by the lawyers who teem in Washington like summertime bugs around a porch light. Yet what it says about the law won't be as important as what it will say about the body politic, meaning the voters. Which of the two is lying is less important than what the voters will do after Clinton is proven to not only to have committed perjury but also to have looked straight into the public's eye and lied. The safe bet is to predict Clinton coming out on top. Consider these facts about the case: Bill Clinton has brought talk about the presidency to a low unforeseen even by the yellow journalists who tried to assassinate the character of presidents thought to have done everything from keeping black concubines (Jefferson) to siring bastards (Cleveland). In the stormy beginning of the saga, the public was treated to a dervish of stories about the angle of Clinton's member, speculation about whether he is partial to oral sex, whether he thinks oral sex with a woman other than his wife is adultery, whether Lewinsky performed oral sex on the president in the Oval Office or kitchenette or broom closet attached thereto, etc., etc., etc. The public then learned Clinton may have been squeezing Kathleen Willey like Mr. Whipple used to squeeze the Charmin, whereupon a lengthy discussion ensued about Willey's breasts and exactly what kind of touching went on. And unseemly talk didn't stop there. On top of that, another woman surfaced to say she could validate or repudiate any stories Paula Jones might tell about Clinton and the night he supposedly dropped his trousers and asked for, you guessed it, oral sex. Dolly Kyle Browning, we learned, was familiar enough with the lower wards of the president's anatomy to disclose a secret or two. Now the story has come full circle back to Monica Lewinsky who, armed with real lawyers this time, has decided she will not lie for the president. In keeping with the unseemly nature of the case, we are again reading about the dress that supposedly contains Bill Clinton's deoxyribonucleic acid. To its credit, the media have refrained from discussing the origin of the genetic evidence. Thus does the Clinton case beg the observation it really shouldn't matter which one of the two, Clinton or Lewinsky, is lying. A man who is the subject of his kind of conversation, a man whose character is open to this kind of speculation, is not a man made of presidential timber. Indeed, he is a man for whom prudence and temperance are anathema, whose judgment is lacking in the extreme, who will submit to the wildest passions without regard to his reputation or standing in the public eye or even his wife. Such a man is unstable and dangerous. And that is why the disposition of this matter, should it push on as expected, will give the voters and their representatives an opportunity that may never again present itself: To throw a man out of office for the simple reason that he is unfit to hold it, irrespective of what he may have done. Richard Nixon was hounded from office for matters of strict constitutional concern, meaning how he conducted himself and the affairs of state. Everyone knew Nixon had to go, including Nixon. But his crimes were political in nature. He didn't slither about the White House wheedling sex out of interns. Because Clinton's case regards personal matters, his removal is problematic, especially in the age of sexual license. This truth gives rise to the corrosive argument that voters should not care about a man's personal life as long as he discharges his duties. Anyone with any sense knows that is nonsense. If a man cannot be faithful to the woman he promised to love, honor and obey, he will not keep faith with 260 million perfect strangers. Clinton has to be removed, either by impeachment or by his party. If he finishes his second term, the American people, and their representatives will hand down their verdict on the subject: Virtue no longer matters. freerepublic.com

To: pezz who wrote (129)	8/2/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

After listening to all your partisan jabs, I have a question for the three of you loyal Clinton supporters. Do you believe he had sex with Monica Lewinsky? If yes, you admit that he is a LIAR! He has spent 7 months lying every day about this sexual relationship. He's lied under oath, through his surrogates, and directly to the American people with his "that woman" speech. He alone has delayed Starr's investigation at least 7 months. If you believe he had sex, you agree to the above. If no (you believe he did not have sex with her), then your fantasies about his accomplishments and character will continue until the truth comes out. Come on Pezz, Mosko and Greenpeace. Tell us - yes or no.

To: pezz who wrote (129)	8/2/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

To you it is clear that he is guilty . Yes, pez, I've shown my hand. I do believe he's guilty and it's unfair to anyone under our justice system to assume so until the facts come out. I'm willing to wait for Starr's report and it's subsequent analysis to form an opinion. My responses are more due to the rants and smears against those providing information and carrying out the investigation to try and stop it before it's finished not to mention the obfuscation and delaying tactics to try and wear down the IC. I've been around long enough though to have seen these same standards, of assumed guilt, visited upon many Republicans who also believed they had the best interests of America at heart, but that didn't stop the partisan attacks against anything they proposed and it's happening in spades today. What animates my unfairness antennae and gets me going most is the double standard. Now that scandal and corruption are visiting themselves upon the left side of the political spectrum there's hell to pay. It was O.K. to trash the right since they represent evil, greed, selfishness, and power brokering. Well...."What's good for the goose is good for the gander"...."He who lives by the sword will die by the sword"....and "The chickens have come home to roost" to quote just a few sayings to represent the situation. Re: Reagan. We'll just have to agree to disagree. History will eventually rightfully put his administration into perspective as it will Clinton's. Already much of the bad press about Reagan is starting to melt away with good retrospective analysis as evidenced by a recent Frontline piece on Reagan. I think history will be much kinder to Reagan than when he was in office. halfscot