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: trouthead who wrote (2495)	9/11/1998 5:33:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

It did not "cost" Burton anything because he did the right thing when he needed to. As to the investigation, when would you like to start? JLA

To: trouthead who wrote (2495)	9/11/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

<<How about if we spend 40 mil investigating you?>> Spend it investigating me. I don't need $22 billion per year for lawyers to cover my ass.

To: trouthead who wrote (2495)	9/11/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<The measure of a man is not what he will admit, but the price he has to pay for that admission.>> I don't agree at all. In the case of Burton, he stepped up to the plate and did the right thing, with no threats hanging over him and no public pressure. Everyone involved knew what was going on and worked toward a solution that worked for everyone, included his son. He avoided ever having to go through what Clinton is going through, because he did the right thing immediately, instead of waiting until the whole world was watching. Compare that to the various nanny-gate participants. Had they been paying the social security taxes all along, they wouldn't have had to admit to anything later, and would not have had to explain why they were, in effect, breaking the law.

To: trouthead who wrote (2495)	9/12/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: wallacestevens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Burton's a hypocrite, no question. But what I don't like about him is that he actively sought to be paid money before he would consider legislation. He wrote a letter to the lobbyist for the Pakistan government saying that unless he got a $5000 campaign donation from them he wouldn't listen to their position on some pending legislation. This is the man investigating campaign finance wrongdoing?

To: trouthead who wrote (2495)	9/12/1998 11:20:00 AM
From: lazarre	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Junior Balloon: I suspect that if you spent 40Million investigating JLA you would surely be dissappointed; all you'd find is another basically decent American, politically conservative, with a decidedly strong sense of right and wrong; articulate and dogged in his pursuit of the truth and so on. Unlike most of his brethren, he is a bit more circumspect while drawing conclusions, and has showed a bit more willingness to let the " thing " play out, kind of like those 2 cowpokes in the Ox Bow Incident. But like the rest of his brethren he may stumble headfirst into the old cliche: " be careful what you wish for." The Law of Unintended Consequences is waiting ever so patiently to pounce once again on the unsuspecting. Unfortunately, the suspecting get pounced right along with them. As for you and your 40M investigation, in a more grounded place and time your sorry a$$ would be sailing out the door into the ether for all the obvious. As for me, I light candles every evening for the continuation of the OIC Statute. L