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: Trippi who wrote (7037)	9/26/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 13994

The November election will be a referendum on this issue. JLA

To: Trippi who wrote (7037)	9/26/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Did you watch the debate on the floor of the House this morning? Nothing timid there. Newt opened his comments as the last speaker before the vote on the tax cut proposal by saying "we're here in Washington taking care of the Nation's business, putting more money in the working man's pocket while the President is in California fundraising". Nothing timid about that....just the facts. Most VOTERS are not as easily confused about the FACTS as you want to think they are. The real TRUTH will come in November!!!

To: Trippi who wrote (7037)	9/26/1998 1:47:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 13994

Let's not make a deal Seeking a way out, Clinton faces more obstacles than opportunities By Jay Severin MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR Sept. 24 — War and politics have in common several things. Chief among them is that when you are confident of victory, you do not retreat and sue for peace. So if Democrats really believe public support for Bill Clinton is solid, why is Sen. John Kerry demanding an immediate armistice? To Democrats, a deal means a parking ticket: censure and, maybe a fine, in return for admitting to lying (but not perjury.) To Republicans, a deal meansClinton's resignation in return for a promise not to be criminally prosecuted. PRESUMABLY KERRY, Rep. Richard Gephardt and other Democratic party elders are not motivated by a wish to save Republicans. Could it be that they are desperate to cut a deal now, while this event is still viewed mainly as a sex scandal as opposed a crime? Could it be that they fear that in the election just 40 days away, voters are poised to “pull a Watergate” — punish a corrupt president by voting the other party into office? They ought to be, and their hectic calls for a deal prove that they are. LAW OF POLITICAL PHYSICS Queer as it is, politics is not entirely immune to the laws of physics. What goes up (Clinton support) must come down. The president is at the apex of his defense trajectory. The window of opportunity is closing. He must deal now. But the problems with a deal are many. For openers, Congress isn't a local district attorney's office dealing with a common criminal. That body simply is not constitutionally authorized to plea bargain, even with such an uncommon criminal as the president of the States. Another barrier to a deal — especially to a quickly arranged one — is politics. Democrats want and need a deal more than do Republicans, and the GOP knows it. In a deal, both sides give and both sides get. But a deal is in the eye of the beholder. To Democrats, a deal means a parking ticket: censure and maybe a fine in return for admitting to lying (but not perjury.) To Republicans, a deal means the gas chamber: Clinton's resignation in return for a promise not to be criminally prosecuted. I'd say the two sides remain somewhat far apart on terms. More political complications: Democratic candidates across the country are begging their leaders to do something now, because the Clinton scandal is killing them. Republican voters are warning their leaders that if they let Clinton off, they'll make them pay on election day. Democrats say they are negotiating a deal. With whom — Bob Dole? Howard Baker? Dwight D. Eisenhower? Not with Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott or Henry Hyde. There is nobody who counts on the GOP side who is dealing. As to the idea — proposed by Democrats — that President Clinton volunteer to testify before Congress, it would be fascinating theater, but hardly a deal-maker. Besides, even Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle frets over what kind of fair hearing Clinton would get. Good point, Senator. I mean, once he's up there, you just don't know — they might treat him like a liar, a cheat. REFERENDUM ON IMPEACHMENT It would appear the imminent election will, essentially, be a referendum on impeachment. If the GOP gains seats, the Clintons can start looking at retirement property. But if Democrats prevail, the Clintons are in clover: if Republicans lose just 11 seats in the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde would be replaced by John Conyers. The White House is acutely aware of this. A Democratic party that once cut candidates off without a dime if they distanced themselves from a Democratic president are now being permitted — nay, encouraged — to slam Bill Clinton, with full party financial backing. Say anything negative you want about him and what he did, they are being told, but just say it isn't impeachable. So this is what Clinton meant by “new Democrat.” Not that Team Clinton doesn't have some guns to fire in the President's defense, it's just that they're looking increasingly feeble. Let's see, we've got the standing ovation at the United Nations — proof, some would say, that the world forgives and needs Bill Clinton. And then there's the plaintive plea of Pennsylvania Congressman Chaka Fattah, who warns ominously that forcing Clinton from office would cost the United States two million to four million jobs — disproportionately harming minorities. (I am not making this up.). No, if there is to be a deal it will most likely come after the House of Representatives impeaches President William Jefferson Clinton. But that depends, of course, on what you mean by “is.”

To: Trippi who wrote (7037)	9/26/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

Trippi, give it a rest. Not everyone is only concerned with their political hide. If going forward with impeachment proceedings makes Joe and Jane Sixpack's stomach roll, then so be it: that's why they are not Congressmen, but are Joe and Jane Sixpack. Even Reuters is now calmly mentioning "Clinton's extramarital affair". Yet Clinton in the Jones deposition openly repudiated the suggestion that he had had an "extramarital affair" with Lewinksy. The punishment for perjury is impeachment. Let the American system of Justice go forward, or the country will regret it. I for one will no longer be subject to the laws of the Federal Government. If they don't apply to Clinton, they surely don't apply to me. Let's see,...isn't the IRS part of the Federal system? Treasury, perhaps? Yummy, all that money I'll be saving.