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: greenspirit who wrote (7133)	9/27/1998 9:55:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Hi Michael D. Cummings; Sure, dougjn called me "dense", for rebutting his ironic racist commentary, but you don't see me sparring with him. Lets stick to the news, rather than the vendettas. The personal attacks are, I believe, on the list of the President's techniques for getting this whole thing off topic. If they can get everybody talking about other people's indiscretions, then their boy gets away free with his abuse of power. The thing I'd like to see, is if those House members gave out government jobs to the kids they #%^%ed, in order to keep them handy or silent. That is what the crime is, not what he did to his marriage. I finally got ticked enough to write a letter to the last guy who's been supporting Bill at the Seattle Times. He's still calling it a scandal about personal behaviour, as are all the president's men. To Eric Lacitis; This is another letter about that "sex" scandal. Back on January 30th, in Lifestyle, you wrote: "Ninety percent of you are saying the same thing about the Special Counsel for Investigating Libidinous Presidents: This is a vendetta, pure and simple; who cares if the country is held hostage?" I think it is now obvious that Bill Clinton has been held hostage. But his being held hostage predates Ken Starr's investigation. It dates to the first bimbo eruption. You see, the scandal is not that the President is an out of control sex addict, the scandal is that his misbehaviour has allowed numerous women to hold him hostage. It has been proved in court that Monica Lewinsky received government jobs (including one with a high security clearance at the Pentagon,) as well as job offers from the private sector at the president's request. This has no big effect on the running of the country, a few dollars here or there. But Monica wasn't very imaginative. Kathleen Willey asked for an ambassadorial appointment. Certainly there is no evidence of a direct link between her keeping silent and the job, but there never is in these things. Should the foreign affairs of this country be handled by people selected on their ability to attract the president? I guess the ability to keep a secret is a good thing for an ambassador. Elizabeth Ward Gracen now believes she recieved her first acting rolls due to Clinton's influence with Hollywood. This is reported in the Sunday New York Post of today (Septemer 28, 1998.) She says that this was in return for her keeping silent about their one night affair. This is the same sort of thing as Monica getting the job offer at Revlon. It is not a proper use of government power. Gennifer Flowers received a job working for the Arkansas government that she was apparently not the best candidate for. The woman who was passed over for promotion sued. The above scandals show the "carrot" side of Clinton's use of government power to control bimbo eruptions. Nixon used the same techniques to attempt to keep Watergate under wraps. Government jobs were offered to those with the ability to embarass the president. The "stick" side of this story is darker, and again implies behaviour identical to that of Nixon's black bag operatives. Gracen says that she was threatened with a smear campaign, and that mysterious suited men broke into her hotel room to steal "tapes", ignoring money and a Rolex watch in plain view. Willey claims her car tires were knifed, and her cat stolen (killed?) by someone wishing to keep her silent. Clinton smeared Monica in a horrible way. He used the most powerful position in the world to suggest she was an insane "stalker", digging up old dirt, etc. No wonder the members of the grand jury felt sorry for her, she must have been afraid for her life. She would still not be believed were it not for the FBI and the blue dress. Given these actions, I cannot understand how anybody would feel compassion for him. Sure the president has a right to privacy, but when you give out government jobs based on the reciepent's ability to provide sexual relief, this is not a private act. When you publicly ridicule a citizen by calling them a "liar" or a "stalker", or "trailer park trash", this is not private behaviour. When you smear people for merely telling or seeking the truth, this is not private behaviour. It is time to impeach the president. -- Carl