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: Zoltan! who wrote (3174)	8/26/1998 2:28:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<Impeaching the president - and effectively overriding the election of 1996 - should not be taken lightly, Gephardt cautioned. Still, "that doesn't mean it can't be done or shouldn't be done; you just better be sure you do it the right way." >>> As fine an example of Democrat double-speak as you'll ever see. <<<Gephardt said if Clinton were to leave office,"we'll get through this." >>> Really? I did not know that. <<<In a series of campaign appearances and press interviews, the top Democrat in the House sent a not-too-subtle signal to the White House he cannot be counted on to blindly back the president. >>> Translation: "Hey, screw you Bill, I got a campaign to run and I know what pony you're backin'" <<<"If Congress decides to go forward with an impeachment process we will be involved in perhaps the most important task the Congress will ever have," ...>>> "outside of screwing the American taxpayer that is..." <<<Gephardt spent Monday talking with House Democrats about their concerns over fallout from the scandal. Clinton's fate increasingly depends on the willingness of congressional Democrats to support him. Administration aides had urged Democratic allies to declare the Lewinsky saga over after Clinton's speech to the nation in which he acknowledged having an inappropriate relationship with the intern. But very few congressional Democrats have done so in the week following the speech, and many have been openly critical of the president for the relationship and his handling of it. >>> "Yesterday's Gone" has been replaced with "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word" <<<According to congressional aides, the House members who spoke to Gephardt Monday said they were "upset, disappointed, angry" with Clinton's speech and were "not willing to say this is over." Several told the Democratic leader that it was a problem for the party that Clinton had not cleared the air and been "more definitive" in his explanation. Many said, according to aides, that they "don't know what else to do except wait for the [independent counsel's] report." >>> See what happens when you fart on the American public. So much for inheriting the mantle of "The Great Communicator". <<<In an interview this afternoon aboard his plane, Gephardt talked of the uncertainty ahead. "There's going to be a lot more said and written about it before we're done," he said, noting the media scrutiny of Clinton was "legitimate." >>> "his plane..." and to think we have the audacity to ask for a tax cut. <<<Earlier in the day, Gephardt told radio station WARM in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,"It was wrong and it was reprehensible....">>> "Read my lips, no new blow jobs" <<<his remarks were particularly ominous because he was the one mentioning words such as impeachment, expel and Watergate. >>> Aren't these three of the same thing? <<<"I'm a prospective grand juror," Gephardt said in the interview. "We need to do this right. It needs to be nonpartisan. It needs to be objective. It needs to be careful. It needs to be rational. I think this is a big test for Congress, whether we can do this right. If this becomes a partisan street fight the American people are really going to be turned off." >>> "...because those Republicans want to starve children, throw old people out in the street blah blah blah..." <<<Asked if people can trust the president, he replied: "Clearly that's an issue that has to be dealt with and I think the president will deal with it." >>> Translation: "I have no idea what lies the President has up his sleeve." <<<Gephardt, a prospective presidential candidate in 2000, is on a three-day campaign swing intended to trumpet some of the party's most promising House candidates. Instead, he and the candidates he stumped with spent much of the day fielding questions about the scandal engulfing Clinton. >>> So much for the theory that Democrats will sweep into Congress in 2000. <<<Gephardt, on the other hand, made clear his priority: "I want to keep the trust and faith and confidence of the American people." >>> As the old saying goes..."You can't give away what you don't have."

To: Zoltan! who wrote (3174)	8/26/1998 6:18:00 AM
From: Jan Garrity Allen	Respond to of 13994

Thanx all for the informative updates!!! I do find this all incredibly sad but these men and women are paid by us to uphold our Constitution and I hope they move swiftly on it!! Starr needs to wrap this up ASAP so we can get on with it!! Thankx again!!

To: Zoltan! who wrote (3174)	8/26/1998 9:05:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Sampling Error Monday's court ruling against the use of statistical sampling in the Census is scarcely a run-of-the-mill judicial decision. Rather, it's another rejection of the Clinton Administration's bending of the law and, perhaps more importantly, a rebuff to the latest Clinton tactical political brainstorm. The Clinton Commerce Department has insisted it already has legal power to institute statistical sampling as the centerpiece of the year 2000 Census. The House of Representatives sued, at the behest of Speaker Gingrich, contending Commerce did not have such power without legislation Congress had no intention of passing. To speed the decision, the suit was heard by a special three-judge panel of two district judges and one from the D.C. Court of Appeals, two appointed by Ronald Reagan and one appointed by President Clinton. They came down 3-0 against sampling. Judge Royce Lamberth's decision told Commerce to read the law. Congress had indeed authorized Census to use sampling, but the same law prohibits its use for the vital purpose of apportioning House seats. The whole thrust of the sampling argument, of course, has been that the traditional head count misses some people who should be statistically reinserted for the purposes of apportionment. No one cares about using sampling for scholarly questions, or for that matter about extra efforts to locate hard-to-reach people. But the statutory exception conforms with the Constitution, which specifies reapportionment based on an "actual enumeration" of all Americans, meaning, as the dictionary defines it "to count off or name one by one." As we've repeatedly seen in the past 200 years, the Founding Fathers were not fools. Yes, statistical sampling has been scientifically developed since their time, and we haven't the least doubt that in scientific hands it's a valid tool. But what hasn't changed since the Constitution was written is human nature, particularly that of political humans. The reason for an actual enumeration is not that sampling is scientifically flawed, but that politicians cheat. In designing statistical sampling, the Census Bureau would have to make a whole series of decisions about what kind of districts to sample, and how much to adjust different results. Though there may be some defensible scientific basis for doing this, the decisions would be subject to political pressure every step of the way. Who would trust Census bureaucrats to stand up to this Administration if it tried to twist the results? In the last Presidential election, the Immigration and Naturalization Agency let itself be used when a record 1.1 million people were made U.S. citizens in a clear attempt to add to the ranks of Democratic constituencies. Post-election it was learned that 180,000 of these people had become citizens without formal FBI approval. Of those 180,000, the FBI had criminal records for 71,000, including 16,400 who had been arrested on felony charges. Congressional probes have documented how Vice President Gore's office pressured the INS to take "drastic measures" to speed up its "Citizenship USA" program. A memo indicates that White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes was briefed on "new-citizen voter registration" at a September 1995 meeting held only one month after "Citizenship USA" was created. "[T]he pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters," the memo warned. A later memo lamented that INS lethargy would fail to "produce a million new citizens before election day." After this episode, the Administration wants Congress to drop the Constitutional "enumeration" for something more "modern," and more flexible. At the same time Attorney General Reno has been flouting the law by refusing to appoint an Independent Counsel for the President and Vice President on the subject of campaign contributions. For that matter, the same Commerce Department that insists it can conduct sampling fairly brokered seats on foreign trade missions in the first Clinton term as a crude campaign fund-raising device. At least we still have a judiciary willing to blow the whistle. Not only that, but the Administration has made the sampling issue a centerpiece of its "close the government" tactic. As recently as August 3, the President vowed to veto any "bare bones" continuing resolution to keep the government funding at current levels pending resolution of policy disputes in the budget. In 1996, he pulled off a public relations coup by vetoing a bill that would have kept the government open and then blaming the Republicans for having closed it. The Republicans have still not recovered, one reason why the President hopes he might pull the same trick again. In particular, President Clinton threatens to veto appropriations for Justice, State and Commerce if they include limits on the use of sampling. How convenient to veto Justice, including money for Ken Starr's investigation. The court ruling leaves this strategy about as phony as the sincerity-dripping denials that the President had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. We await smoke signals from the White House telling us what the next veto excuse will be.