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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3600)	9/18/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

ABC News also reported that the story was shopped to them by Sydney Blumenthal.... >>To my mind, it's important that the public knows the background of those who will sit in judgement....<< If anything the fact that Henry Hyde had an affair years ago would tend to make him more "sympathic" in his view of Clinton. But again, for what seems like the zillionth time, Mr. Clinton is not being charge with adultery. The criminal acts which have been uncovered by the OIC investigation are (from the referral) a)lying under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit, b)attempting to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; c)attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; d)attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that false affidavit at his own deposition; e) lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and f)engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. I don't believe Henry Hyde stands accused of any of the above behavior. bp

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (3600)	9/18/1998 3:24:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>The impact of the "distinguished"(now debatable)Chairman of the Judiciary Committee(Mr. Hyde) pontificating on the evils of infidelity & lying would be much stronger from someone who had always lived his own life according to those ideals.< If in his pontificating, Mr. Hyde either directly or indirectly publicly criticized another for doing the same thing he himself has done, this, without a public disclosure of and repentance for his own errors, then, of course, he was foolish, and suffers precisely as he should. Still, this does not in any way mitigate the circumstances of Mr. Clinton's repeated lying before a civil court and Federal Grand Jury. It by no means mitigates Mr. Clinton's repeated and pathological infidelity. Mr. Hyde, did not abuse the public, and he has not broken the law-certainly not repeatedly so as far as we know. Even if he has, Clinton would logically be in the exact same circumstances in which he currently finds himself. Were I Clinton (and I am so very glad I am not), I would be on the phone repeatedly to Hyde, and I would publicly excoriate Salon, even launching my own internal investigation to be sure no one in the White House had anything whatever to do with the story. I would also, in the strongest terms, make it known that anyone who has anything to do with the White House, had better not become involved with leaks concerning the sexual dalliances of anyone, and I would repeatedly and publicly denounce, with extraordinary harshness, any "news" organization that would do what Salon did. I would also renounce the statements released by anonymous White House operatives to the affect of creating a "Sexual Armageddon" in the event of a push toward impeachment proceedings. The above actions will likely have three excellent effects: 1.) It would instantly place Clinton on the "high road", thereby increasing the White House's credibility. 2.) It would add to Clinton's attempts to demonstrate his repentance, in essence showing that he understands Hyde's "pain" and does not wish it upon even his enemies. This will have two subsidiary effects: a.) it will convince many Americans of the sincerity of Clinton's understanding of his circumstances, and here again will add to his credibility, b.) having accomplished "a." it will place a remarkable amount of public pressure on Congress to be fair, forgoing spitefulness. 3.) If he is successful in protecting Hyde and others who are to judge him, Clinton will likely enjoy the effects of human nature as it plays out in the members of Congress. The Congress will be perhaps a bit more willing to forgo some of the partisan bickering and scheming that is sure to occur with these unfettered attacks. With public pressure (created as a result of the above) as well as that provided by their own relief given them by the very man they judge, congressional members will likely be more fair-minded than they would otherwise. To be sure, if Clinton does nothing here, even if he is not to blame, he will be blamed by those suffering the consequences of their own stupidity. People will use him as a scapegoat even if he had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks, and in light of his credibility problem, I think many people, in the backs of their minds, will believe the White House was involved somehow. Clinton merely cuts his own throat with his simple denials. His word has no value now, even amongst his supporters. He must put action behind his words to give them value, and eventually people will begin to believe him again.