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: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 6:49:00 AM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 13994

Mr. Craig Livingstone on this thread? How nice ...

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 6:58:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Whoa! What a rant! Did you have a bad day yesterday! Who do you think you are to come on this thread and tell me or anyone else that I am wasting my time. Its obvious you haven't read a single post on this thread. Despite what you and your pathetic ilk would like to make of it this episode has nothing to do with "Naziism" (which is a leftist ideology by the way) or any of the other evils you pin on Ken Starr or Republicans in general. Its about whether the person we elect to the highest office in our country is above the law and exactly what standard do we hold such people to while they are representing us and this country. Given the large number of indictments and convictions which have come from these investigations, any idiot could see this is not a "witch hunt". Keep dreaming Mr. Jason. Meanwhile its people like your hero, Bubba and yourself who contribute to the coarsening and dumbing down of our society. We can only allow our expectations to be defined down so far before our system ceases to operate as the Constitution requires. That is the ultimate danger in having perjurers in the WH. JLA

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 7:06:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

Yes, you are absurd. No one could ever accuse you of mentality, herd or otherwise. You have accomplished the greatest distillation of mendacious idiocy ever witnessed on SI, no doubt your specialty. Will Clinton's punishment fit the crime? By George Will (Published August 6, 1998) WASHINGTON--Neither good taste nor public-spiritedness mars the nearly perfect seaminess to which President Clinton's self-indulgence and self-absorption have reduced the national conversation. However, this is almost sublime: His grand jury testimony is scheduled for Aug. 17, fifty years to the day after a riveting moment in another perjury drama. In 1948 Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist, accused Alger Hiss of espionage while both were serving the Soviet Union. On Aug. 17 Hiss was invited by Congressman Richard Nixon to Room 1400 in New York's Commodore Hotel, where Chambers awaited. After a pantomime of uncertainty, Hiss said he had known Chambers slightly, under another name. Thus Hiss continued to weave the tangled web that destroyed him. The Hiss case involved large themes--dangerous international conflict, clashing understandings of man and justice. Clinton's crisis partakes of his defining attribute: smallness. Which might save him. When Kenneth Starr's report puts Monica Lewinsky in the context of the seamless corruption of Clinton's career--a chronological report 500 pages long might not deal with her until Page 400--the very multiplicity of episodes may make all seem as small as the Clintons. So the country may say: Let him limp across the finish line. The great constitutional remedy--impeachment--should be reserved for weightier objects. Has Clinton committed perjury? Only his word--that is, nothing serious--suggests otherwise. Would a perjurer suborn perjury? Please. Can obstruction of justice be proved? Perhaps not. Clinton may not have told Lewinsky to lie--just as Henry II perhaps did not "tell" servile underlings to murder Beckett. Henry just wondered aloud, in the presence of people eager to ingratiate themselves, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Watergate occasioned important reappraisals (often misguided) of campaign regulations, presidential powers and the supervision of national security institutions. But no large lessons will flow from the Clintons' misadventures, only a truism: It is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positions of trust and conspicuousness. The artful dodger looks increasingly cornered, but Aug. 17 could have much drama drained from it by a pre-emptive presidential address of contrition. But be warned: Political apologies often turn out to be self-testimonials by the apologizer, who confesses that he erred because he loved the people too much or expediency too little. Clinton's might be a hackneyed reprise, replete with serial lip-bites, of his synthetic sincerity that is by now banal: "Compassion made me less than completely candid because I could not bear to hurt ..." That would be (in Mark Twain's words) not merely food for laughter but an entire banquet. (Clinton's supposed brilliance as a rhetorician is refuted by an axiom: A sculptor wants to be seen to be a sculptor, and a painter seen to be a painter, but an orator does not want to be seen as an orator.) However, what is Clinton's choice? If he commits perjury before the grand jury, a catalyzing few Democrats of distinction probably will grease the skids beneath him. Starr's indifference to polls is a facet of the probity that makes him unintelligible to Clinton, and surely there are Democrats of probity who are unwilling to ratify by passivity any more of his defining political deviancy down. Still, if that blue cocktail dress yields no physical evidence, Clinton might roll the dice and stick with his story. Doing so, he would risk everything on the gamble--he should assume that Starr has heard from witnesses Clinton knows nothing of--that Starr has not accumulated convincing corroborative evidence of Lewinsky's story. Clinton's presidency, an inconsequential skiff even before waves of scandal began pouring over the gunnels, has now been whittled nearly to nothingness by the public's intuitive wielding of "Ockham's razor," also called the principle of parsimony. The principle is: When seeking to explain phenomena, start with the simplest theory. The public understands that Clinton's behavior for six months-- silence, when not minting implausible privilege claims and directing calumny against Starr--has been rational if, but only if, he is guilty. Polls--snapshots of a flowing river--will change radically if he commits perjury before the grand jury. There is no look as baleful as that which contorts the faces of some Clinton despisers when they think he might "get away with it." Have they not noticed? Condign punishment is under way--public mortification, domestic torture (life on the White House's second floor must now be gothic) and political emasculation. Yet to come, the ridicule of history. The object so sublime, to make the punishment fit the crime, is already being achieved. sacbee.com

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 8:17:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Please point out in the Constitution the "right to commit perjury". Thank you. JLA

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 8:40:00 AM
From: dd	Respond to of 13994

*** I'll leave you with this request; Please furnish for me all of your names, addresses and telephone numbers* I didn't see yours anywhere Ricky baby.**

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 8:52:00 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 13994

What ever did happen to the RIGHT OF PRIVACY? It was destroyed by the income tax amendment to the Constitution.

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

LOL, nice rant.....bp

To: Rick Jason who wrote (926)	8/11/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Under the Clinton watch, you're proposing two standards of conduct: one for Clinton and one for those under him. There've been several military personnel drummed out of the Armed Forces for similar conduct. Consentual and non-consentual. Including two generals. We could've saved a lot of money if the White House didn't continually stonewall. Interesting your posts from the CELLSTAR THREADS: Message 5449920 >>> race, I've been tracking this thread for a few months and I couldn't resist becoming a trial member, so I could respond with some info that will be helpful with respect to the last 10 or so posts. Rather than go through it again here, go to the Cellstar message board and type in the message number 3929. ( I go by the ID "icon1012" on that thread) This is an ACTUAL copy of an INTERNAL MEMO from "that Company in Tennessee" dated July 20th... If they're are correct regarding their industry sources, then either CellStar has a deal with Iridium AND Globalstar -- or Iridium is not in the picture with CellStar. Hope this helps. RJ P.S. Let's keep this information confined to the threads for obvious reasons! >>>