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: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (6970)	9/25/1998 11:13:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Well, if no one else wants to offer a rebuttal, I guess I'll give it a shot. I wouldn't consider myself a Clinton defender... You just did. 1. Why is it ok to end the career of people in of the armed services for sex harassment, lying or inappropriate behavior, but not the President? It's not O.K. to end their careers for such offenses. As a matter of fact a debate is under way within the military as to whether crimes of the heart should be punished by courts martial. Whether there is a debate now is irrelevent. The president himself backs the status quo. The question is still valid. 2. Why is it so wrong to pry into the lives of the President yet it's ok for the Administration to pry into over 900 FBI files for months? If Clinton did in fact knowingly procure FBI files to smear his enemies, that is an impeachable offense. Let him hang. Too bad Starr mentions nothing about the FBI files in his report. He procured the files, knowingly or unknowlingly. He had access to personal private info on 900 of his political enemies. Starr, in an obvious non partisan move, is giving him the benefit of the doubt on how the files got there. The question is still valid. 3. Why was it ok for Clarence Thomas to be tried on National T.V. Yet it's so wrong to watch a recorded video tape of the Presidents testimony? There's nothing wrong with watching the president's testimony. Unless you are allergic to be being bored to death. That's not what the democrats said. They said, and the polls were convinced, that it was wrong. Sadly, those polls were not asked during the Thomas hearings. The question is still valid. 4. Why was it ok to watch President Reagan's grand jury testimony and not a word ever said about it? "I don't recall" (get it?) Reagan being hauled before a grand jury. I remember him testifying before Congress in the Iran-Contra hearings. I was 18 back then, so my memory could be faulty. I don't know that any other president in the great history of the United States of America has disgraced his office badly enough to be brought before a grand jury. I agree with youi on this, Reagan never testified before a grand jury. 5. Why was lying and obstruction of justice wrong for Nixon, but not for Clinton? Obstruction is wrong, period. But nothing has been proven about the obstruction of justice charge. Just alleged. As for the lying, people lie all the time. Lying about spying on your enemies and hush money and dirty tricks is different from lying about an affair. Lying under oath is different from lying. Clinton's transgression of lies showed a disregard for the laws and his oath of office. And proof is a matter of degree. Nothing was proven in a court of law about Nixon or even criminally about O.J. So you can twist this argument to any standard you wish. His question is still valid. 6. Why was it ok to end the career of Senator Packwood for kissing woman, then look into his private diary, but it's wrong to do this with the President? Sen. Packwood kissed a woman against her will. Monica initiated the romance. But Kathleen was kissed against her will, same as Packwood's misdeed. Paula was summoned and then crudely propositioned against her will. His question is still valid. 7. Why are we so concerned about what Starr is doing to America's children, but not what the President is? Intelligent people are concerned about what this whole process and all of the players are doing to America in general. I think the children issue is valid, not just the entire process. 8. Why is the NOW gang so non-judgmental in this issue. And why are they ignoring the sex harassment? Again, there are only allegations of sexual harassment. As there were against Sen Packwood and Justice Thomas. The only thing Clinton has fessed up to has been an affair. I suspect NOW senses it has a better friend in the White House under Bill-Hill than it could dream of with any of the Republican Talibanites out there. They're not going to do anything to harm him, even if he settles the Paula Jones suit. To think otherwise is naive. So you admit it's liberal politics as usual. The question still stands valid. 9. Why is Linda Tripp the embodiment of evil for exposing this administration for what it is. Yet deep throat was a hero? Linda Tripp betrayed the trust of a 22-year-old woman in order to help a prosecutor get the sexual goodies on a president. It sounds like a bad Hollywood screenplay. Deep Throat betrayed the trust of the president to help two obscure journalist expose the criminal malfeasance of a president. It WAS an excellent Hollywood screenplay. And a pretty good book. People like heroes who take risks for a greater good. I think Linda Tripp is a hero for finally exposing this president as an irrefutable fraud, just as deep throat did to Nixon. Monica is really a disposable non-entity here. Or as Clinton says, "that woman". The question is still valid. I think his questions are mostly on target and point out the gross hypocrisy of the left.