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: j g cordes who wrote (6615)	9/21/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

"I gave her explicit instructions...ur um...encouragement, to tell the truth." -Bill Clinton-

To: j g cordes who wrote (6615)	9/21/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Is every American, including the President, obligated to reveal every detail of his personal life when its not illegal behavior? No, you can invoke your 5th amendment rights against self incrimination at any time. Clinton declined to do this for political reasons. Other than this remedy, yes you have to answer any question asked or face severe consequences.

To: j g cordes who wrote (6615)	9/21/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Len	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

gross hypocrisy. Would that be considered a high crime or misdemeanor?<ggg> Fact is, they're only allowed to get away with continuing hypocrisy because we let them. It isn't hard to correlate the declining number of people who bother to vote, let alone get involved in the system, and the mounting numbers of corrupt and hypocritcal officials. If they knew they would indeed get booted from office when found to be duplicitous or dishonest, they might have a little fear of the consequences. Citizen apathy has never been lower. Remember also, that our media shares a lot of the blame. Ever wonder why, when a politician refuses to answer a question, or dances around the question without answering it, he/she never gets seriously challenged by a media member? Sure, they may try once or twice to POLITELY get the idiot to answer the specific question, but NEVER do they get in their face, and demand that they answer, and not let them off until they do. They always let he/she get away with it. Why????? Because, to do so would guarantee that they would never have access to that person again. It's all an agreed upon game. "You ask me questions, I'll dance around, but as long as you drop it quickly, I'll give you the access you need." Once the media person crosses the line, his/her career can be hurt, by virtue of lesser and lesser access. Reporters, anchors, and such are not immune to the same ego challenges most of us experience. While he/she might look like a hero in that instance, the longer term downside outweighs the temporary benefit. It's a shame, but we have to realize that that is how it really works. Len