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: Alan Markoff who wrote (3210)	9/16/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Kelly Flynn was her name.

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (3210)	9/16/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi Nancy, I believe we also had a case of a general whose name was taken out of contention for the Joint Chiefs position because of an adulterous affair (which wasn't even contemporaneous) bp.

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (3210)	9/16/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<This is the highest military office.>> You are completely wrong. The Presidency is not a military office at all. We have CIVILIAN control of the military. Neither the President, nor for that matter, the Secretary of Defense is subject to the military codes of justice. This is not just a technical matter. We do not expect, as a people, our President to be a military man, or steeped in military culture. Some past service has often been thought good and virtuous (and we all know of course that Clinton had none), but very few of our Presidents have had long or high ranking military careers. And even the ones that did, including Eisenhower of course, ceased to be subject to the military codes of justice when they resigned from the military, and became Presidents. Now I for one think the military codes of justice could probably use some adjusting. But I think that's largely up to them. <<Does anyone remember about a year ago a woman in the military that was given a dishonorable discharge for adultry? The irritating part of it was Mr. Clinton supported her humiliation and discharge while he was having adultry with Monica.>> I don't recall Clinton having or saying anything to do with that. As an internal matter of military justice, I very much doubt he could have done anything about it. It's up to the military to reform their system. Perhaps with some general pressure from Congress or the President, but not concerning any particular pending decision. And besides all that, there's a long tradition of hands off such matters. Doug

To: Alan Markoff who wrote (3210)	9/17/1998 1:54:00 AM
From: Michael Sphar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi Nancy, As I recall the case, the female Officer in question faced a courts martial review and was forced out of the service not for her acts of fraternization with an enlisted man, but for disobeying a lawful order given by a senior commander which I suppose had something to do with her personal behavior not measuring up to the widely understood expected behavior of an Officer. So it was insubordination not sex that was her ultimate downfall. The military environment is different from civilian life and therefore the laws which govern it are different, but much is similar. The concept of fraternization is absolutely similar to the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. There is something at least unbecoming about a senior officer of a governmental organization bestowing inappropriate attention and favors on a junior subordinate of the opposite sex. This behavior demands sanctioning, in any workplace. For it to happen in the highest office of the land, and then be followed by a trail of actions which on the surface appear to be attempts to cover up the evidence and ensure that coverup by applying the powers vested in the office, is more than inappropriate. It demands review for accountability. Everyone including the President knows the inevitability of this but this process takes time and will bear forth under great scrutiny from all sides as the stakes are relatively high. In the end the Office will be expurgated.