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: Bill who wrote (5630)	9/27/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hey - its Sunday morning. Shouldnt you be in church?

To: Bill who wrote (5630)	9/27/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

No. They don't want that. They think Clinton is a joke as president. They want the American people to agree. No hypocrisy, no holier than thou. Just that he's a joke. Quite a substantive statement there. At this point, the American people seem to be thinking that Starr is more of a joke than Clinton. Personally, I'd be happy to see the Republicans spend the next 5 weeks trying to convince them otherwise. I have a feeling that won't be the general message being preached, short term. After the election, of course, things will change. The kind of honesty you favor, eh Bill? Cheers, Dan.

To: Bill who wrote (5630)	9/27/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: Marty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Thanks for the response, Bill, I didn't think it would be possible to answer these questions without torturing yourself with extreme embarrassment in the process. I guess I was wrong. Goes to show that the adage that one of the most futile enterprises known to man is to try to talk a Republican into voting Democratic and vice versa. That's probably why civil political discourse has all but died in this country. The partisan extremists on both sides take up the debate and ordinary people in middle have their own views simply keep them to themselves. I don't have any strong party affiliation myself, and I had hoped that some common consensus, regardless of party, like... O.J. is obviously guilty and something is terribly wrong with our judicial system ... could be found. Too bad, I was wrong. Here are my thoughts on your responses. <<No. They don't want that. They think Clinton is a joke as president. They want the American people to agree. No hypocrisy, no holier than thou. Just that he's a joke.>> You would think that they could find a better way to get the rest of us to agree than this endless humiliation, stretching of the Constitution, and casting a cloud over the office. <<Starr will not go down as a McCarthy. That's ridiculous. Monica's statement was in fact in the report. This was a lie by the White House that went misreported. (And I thought you told me you were not ignorant?)>> Starr is every bit as bad as McCarthy and this comparison, and worse, is being made in the foreign press as well. I only know what is reported in the newspaper and I don't know at all that it was misreported. The testimony certainly was never reported as being in the report, which I think would have happened. I never knew there was such testimony until this item was reported. I'll ignore your insult as coming from someone who is frustrated that they have no other argument. <<You should have asked about sex with extreme subordinates. In that case, very few people have that poor judgment.>> I agree that sex with extreme subordinates is poor judgment and, if I were his wife, I would divorce him. <<Lot's of people (lie). Under oath, even fewer.>> Any lawyer will confirm that, even under oath, people lie, shade the truth, neglect to mention, don't recall, evade, all the time. They do it purposely and also because that is how they actually remember it. <<No, I have never been accused in a court sanctioned action of sexual harassment>> I am sure you have led a sinless life but the point of the question is that interrogating a person, under penalty of perjury, of the intimate details of his sex life, is bizarre. It has to humiliating to the witness and satisfying only to perverts or extreme partisans seeking to portray the witness as a "joke". The man admitted it! No more is necessary. The relationship with Monica was hardly sexual harassment. <<This (politicians getting jobs for people)has nothing to do with sexual blackmail>> As I read the story, it seemed that Monica was attempting to blackmail Clinton for a new job in exchange for discretion. <<So back to the "everybody does it" defense.>> Even as ignorant as I may be, it strikes me as that Starr, as an attorney who defends tobacco companies, widely considered, in conjunction with their attorneys, as being the biggest liars in legal history, is hardly the one to prosecute a subornation of perjury allegation. <<Big deal (entrapping and taping friends). So what? How else could the evidence have been collected against the WH law breaker?>> I suppose, that if the goal is to show Clinton as a jerk, anything and everything is ok. Memories of Nixon's reasons whelm up. <<Not true. Standard investigative procedures were used. There is no reason to go after Tripp. He was hired by the AG to go after Clinton.>> Maryland must have made an exception to its wiretap laws in Tripp's case. No sense even investigating whether Tripp's tapes were doctored or if she lied to the grand jury because the zealots have no interest in making her look like a joke. Starr, under his assumed charter, lost all sense of proportion and his investigation is grounded in unfairness. <<Who? The founding fathers, that's who. He has a constitutional duty to look into this matter. It's his job. What do you want him to do with it now, just drop it? Get real.>> Henry Hyde has expanded his role from considering bringing impeachment charges to the Senate to examining whether Clinton is worthy to be President. There are specific charges before him on whether to impeach or not not an unrestrained opportunity to show the President as a joke. <<Please. You have proven you are not worthy to vote for republicans. You have been spun by the dems to vote for dems. Enjoy.>> Fine. If everybody pulled in the same direction, the world would keel over. I think you guys are way out of line and history will see it the same way.

To: Bill who wrote (5630)	9/27/1998 2:17:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

(And I thought you told me you were not ignorant?) That statement (made by you to someone else, in this case) is typically gratuitously insulting. Your instincts are those of a school yard bully Vaughn. (Not that you're very good at it.) This is hardly an isolated instance. You regularly say things like that. As most who have had the distinct pleasure of your presence know. And when that insult was made by you (again, to someone else) particularly in the following context, that insult is absolutely ridiculous: Starr will not go down as a McCarthy. That's ridiculous. Monica's statement was in fact in the report. This was a lie by the White House that went misreported. (And I thought you told me you were not ignorant?) Someone who believed that WH and supporters position, since it has gone unchallenged by the opposing talking heads for at least of couple of days, is hardly by that fact ignorant. It's not only an insult. It's absurd on it's face. And far more indicative of the bleeter of the insult, than its target. Further, I still have not heard any in the press make that point, and lately I've been watching and reading it a lot. Someone may have, but certainly not many. Further, I happen to HAVE read the Starr report. I don't claim to have closely studied every inch of it. It's quite a scree. I have studied some parts closely. And have read through others quite quickly. I have not see Lewinsky's statement that she was never asked to lie under oath, and never promised a job in return for her testimony in the Starr report. It's not impossible that it's there. But I didn't see it. Perhaps you would like to cite the section and paragraph? And I still haven't seen that reported. You possibly could be right. But I think it likely you are wrong. Or intentionally misstating the facts, again. Doug