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: Doughboy who wrote (2603)	8/22/1998 2:08:00 AM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

There has been so much comment on the media about the innoccence of lewinski that is enough to make you barf. Did she plot to use evidence to her benifit? Namely storing the stained dress? For what purpose? The answer to me is obvoius. If she was so much in love with him, why would she rat on him? In the last number of years there seems to be an ever increasing number of people who will do anything to get the spotlight with the hopes of writing a book or what ever. It is sad to see the moral degridation that the US society has slipped into. Clinton is no inoccent for sure. But the vultures that feed off these situations are less then the worst of the lot. Lewinski is an opportunist and not much better then a 3rd rate hooker. She may be getting her jollies now but I think she will pay for it later. Putro Vida

To: Doughboy who wrote (2603)	8/22/1998 3:46:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<I agree that this is a middle of the road scandal, but I don't think it should result in impeachment (nor will it). >>> Maybe, but luckily for the American people having Mr. Clinton in the middle of the road makes for an easy target. <<<I think there is an important distinction to be made between personal conduct and public conduct. IMO, while the President's conduct was morally wrong, indicative of serious personal flaws, and dishonest, I do not think they rise to the level of public corruption that was rooted out by Iran-Contra, Watergate and the House Bank (to pick a Democratic scandal of recent vintage). >>> It always amuses me how liberals look at trading arms for hostages was a bad thing. If the charges were true and they were never consequentially proven the perpetrators would deserve prosecution regardless of whether someone looked upon such illegalities as inconsequential. <<Therefore I do not believe that he deserves to be impeached for it.>> Yes, but thank goodness the law doesn't rely on public opinion. <<<I know, I know, everyone wants to make this into an "abuse of power" scandal, but it simply is not. >>> Maybe not in the true sense of criminal activity but anyone who doesn't see an "abuse of power" here has obviously had his head up some Democrat's rear end for too long. <<<It is about a man who could not resist giving into his all too human desires, and who tried to cover it up.>>>> Folks, this is nothing more than an excuse for immaturity given by someone who is immature about someone who is immature. Maturity is defined as knowing the breadth of your power and honoring it accordingly. Not using it to indulge yourself in vices that you could easily avoid. <<But say what you will, the cover-up here was not done on the public dime. In contrast, Nixon (whether he knew about the Watergate break-in beforehand) executed a cover-up at the highest levels of government including officials like the Attorney General of the United States. I think that raises much more concern and warrants impeachment. >>> OK so please tell us how Mr. Clinton isn't guilty of the same thing considering he has used government officials in the capacity of his cabinet, staff and even his own wife to defend and cover up his actions. If you don't see that as being on our dime then you prove yourself hopeless.