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: jim kelley who wrote (2625)	9/12/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Jim, that which does not kill us makes us stronger After listening to Pat Boone's "No More Mr. Nice Guy" heavy-metal cover-tune adventure, I'm not so sure I agree with the above <g> But seriously, I'm inclined to reject the argument that this is about the President's private life. If you read through the report, the authors made repeat mention of the "Residence" portion of the White House. I see nothing in the report intruding on any activity in the Residence portion of the White House. What occurred, occurred while he was on public time in the West Wing of the White House. A President conducting the affairs of State in the Oval Office, such as communicating with legislators via the telephone, that is the President "doing the nation's business". He was allegedly on the phone with Rep. Sonny Callahan while receiving oral sex in the Oval Office. Are we supposed to believe that the top half of his body was "public life Bill" and the lower half was "private life Bill"? I'm not happy with this mess either. There are serious problems in the world that require strong American leadership and plenty of work that still needs to be done at home. I'm not happy over having a weakened Presidency. I don't want to know about the sexual affairs of every public official. If there are members of the House Judiciary Committee who perjured themselves before federal criminal grand juries, they should be dealt with as well. But given the fact that we have gotten to where we are (and again, I am very receptive to the argument that this OIC pursued a line most others wouldn't), IMHO it's wrong to walk away from it on the grounds that Ken Starr was "unfair" or that the subject matter surrounding the charges was "nobody's business" and let the crimes alleged in the report stand in full public view without any consequences. Good trading, Tom