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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (701)	8/25/1998 1:31:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<OK, conservatives think its honorable to kiss and tell. Good to know. Ill put that in my little black book.>> I think it's honorable to 'fess up and take responsibility for your actions and for the consequences of those actions. If your actions cause pain for others, maybe you shouldn't have taken those actions. Not confessing caused pain for other people, including the general public. The act of adultery does result in people being hurt. If/when Monica was finally cut off, she would have been hurt. Other people that didn't get the jobs that Monica got as a result of her attentions to Clinton were hurt. Those people were hurt, as were the people that were hurt as a result of Clinton's "confession", due to Clinton's actions. He is responsible. Now, do Starr and others have responsibility for anything? Of course. Without commenting on the possible contents of the Starr report, he is still responsible for the results of his investigation. Was that investigation proper? Should he have stopped short of the gory details? I don't know, and I won't comment until the report comes out, but even if it was the "right" thing to do, he still bears the responsibility for the pain caused, the same way that Truman was responsible for dropping the bombs on Japan - he thought it was the right thing to do, and felt justified, but the people still died. No I'm not comparing the morality of the two situations, only pointing out that you can cause pain and still consider that the correct thing to do. If it turns out that nothing was proven, maybe Starr will apologize to all the people that were hurt by his actions, and explain why he felt compelled to act as he did. It would be the honorable thing to do. We need to keep Clinton's responsibility for his actions separate from Starr's responsibility for his - they could both be wrong.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (701)	8/25/1998 11:52:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, re I think he did the right thing, what I wanted him to do, on that issue. OK, conservatives think its honorable to kiss and tell. Good to know. Ill put that in my little black book. Michelle, I'll just presume that you have no problem with the President having sexual "sessions" with young employees in a little room off the Oval Office. I'll just for the sake of this argument assume that you and many others, whatever your personal opinions of it, will not presume that there exists unspoken standards of perssonal conduct for Presidents, CEOs, Military Generals, indeed bosses of all stripes. Fine. But remember, Ken Starr didn't even know who Monica was until the Jones legal team decided they wanted to question her about him. And why was this? Because it seems that Mr. Clinton, according to a former State of Arkansas employee, dropped his pants uninvited, and told her to kiss it. This isn't just some good ol' boy. This was the Governor of Arkansas. Some question the amount of time that has passed since the alleged incident. But everyone knows that at that time, the word sexual harassment wasn't something that people equated with lawsuits and plaintiffs, if indeed they had even heard of the term. My contention is that it has clearly been a consistent standard of bad conduct which has led Clinton to the place where he was called to court on a charge of sexual harassment, which of course he vehemently denied. If then-Governor Clinton was guilty of the thing Jones accused him of, do you think that it also would constitute of form of "kiss and tell", if he admitted fault in that incident? Or do you believe that anything to do with wrong sexual conduct should indeed be the legal privilige for all men, great and small, to freely perjure themselves about, while the populace stands by and cheers them? The Judge in the Paula Jones case said that even ifthen-Governor Clinton was guilty of eposing his penis to a fellow State of Arkansas employee and telling her to "kiss it", "it would not constitute outrageous behavior" in the State of Arkansas. With that judgement, Judge Susan Webber Wright, in my opinion, has disgraced her office and her duties, and is no longer fit to serve public office. Because with that summary judgement, she encouraged this sort of base behavior not only in common citizens, but in officials in high and powerful public offices. So in my view, Bill's disgraces which he has visited upon the public have been NOT just one little marital indiscretion or even two: His troubles began when he uninvited, allegedly exposed himself to an employee who was far down the food chain in the Arkansas government, while he was at the top. Michelle, neither you nor I, nor undoubtedly any of us on this thread, were we granted high office as has Bill has, even imagine so badly abusing the public trust as has Bill Clinton. No, it's not about simply lying about an extramarital affair. It is the pattern and consistency of Clinton's abuses that make me long for a political cleansing.