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 (6990)	9/25/1998 9:36:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Borzou, you call that picked apart? That's funny, let's see... :-) 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. There may be a debate in some circles, but the fact is people are being booted even as we speak, not for love, but for engaging in an inappropriate relationship in the workplace. It's called Fraternization. You're flippant attitude about people who's careers have been ruined, tells me you know very little about this subject. 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. Here it appears you agree with me, the administration has already admitted to this accusation. Why does Ken Starr need to prove anything? 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. You agree with me here, but look at all the whining which took place on this thread :-) 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. Here you are simply ignorant, the President never testified before Congress. The grand jury tape recordings were played on CNN/ABC/NBC for months. Remember the clip they kept playing, sorry, I don't remember, sorry, I don't remember? 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. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity will have to admit, especially after reading the transcripts and watching the testimony, that the President obstructed Justice. Except of course the extreme partisan Clinton lovers. 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. Did you miss the 60 minutes interview? He groped a woman in the oval office, and exposed himself to Paula Jones. Do you really believe they were lying?? Is kissing really worse? :-) 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. Once again you agree. 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. 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. Did you completely miss the Clarence Thomas hearings? It was only allegations too, and one persons word, yet the NOW gang went on national television for months and demanded his head. 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. They despise villains who put other people at risk for their own good. I disagree, the screenplay is much better and alluring here. At least Linda Tripp had the guts to come public, and not hide in dark alleys. And she took a great deal of risk. She was taking on the most powerful person in the world. Picked apart huh Borzou?? :-) Michael