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: dougjn who wrote (4305)	9/21/1998 4:59:00 PM
From: xbrent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't mind a fine for Bill. Don't forget that Ron got $1 mil for a speech in Japan right after he left office. I thought that that was poor form. But anyway Bill and Hillary will earn may $15 mill or more for their books. They will earn maybe $100k a pop for speeches, maybe a few for $250k. Hillary will be on all the corporate boards she can handle. Lying to the American people like that is awful and can't be repeated unless the next pres knows it will be costly. Also if Bill had had a relationsip with Barbara Striesand in a Ritz hotel somewhere it might be embarassing if caught but it is none of my business. Sex in his official office with an employee even a consenting employee is awful and can't be tolerated either. Can't smoke pot in the office, bet on the ponies, snort anything, run around naked etc. etc. These guys know the rules we don't need to write them out. They have an implied contract. Also the democrats loved the IC act, they thought it swell. Both parties need to quit retaliating like this and back off. I would like the repbs to cut a deal with the dems right now. We quit the stupid retaliation, it hurts the country. Yes, they should limit the IC act and somehow reduce its scope and length. I would not mind seeing the Supreme Court involved on deciding when to have an IC>

To: dougjn who wrote (4305)	9/22/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I oppose a fine because a) Clinton has already paid (or indebted himself to pay) a HUGE amount in legal fees to defend himself against Starr's investigations ($6 million as I recall), and b) he doesn't have any money>> Not exactly true. The Clinton defense funds have raised over $3 million I believe, and Clinton's last financial release showed him with a net worth over a million. He also receives a tax free salary of over $200k/year, and has all his expenses paid. He is hardly the poor relation you make him sound. <<Clinton has indeed been humbled. Very much. Escaping impeachment will be no victory>> I agree with the first part, but not the second. After seeing clips from the tapes, it would appear that Clinton or his supporters would absolutely declare that outcome a victory, and would use it to attack the Republicans. That's part of the problem. If Clinton would admit what he did (he still won't say what was improper about the relationship or what the relationship was - he still insists there was no sex), and act contrite, I would agree with censure and dropping the issue. However, Clinton will immediately go on the attack, as he has always done. He will try to turn the embarrassment into a political victory. Therefore, the Republicans really can't drop it.