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: Bill who wrote (7298)	9/28/1998 11:14:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

Six Year-Old Boy Charged With Breaking Federal Anti-Trust Laws MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA - Six year-old Joshua Longstreet may look like an ordinary first-grader, but this week he was brought up on charges of breaking Federal Anti-Trust laws. The reason he is facing these charges is because he will not share his toys with the other kids in his neighborhood. "Joshua is a selfish little creep," exclaimed Mary Schiff, Joshua's next door neighbor and mother of two. Every time my children went to play at Joshua's he would hoard his toys and scream bloody murder if anyone tried to touch them." Mrs. Schiff brought Joshua's behavior to the attention of Harold Sumner, the Montgomery District Attorney in hopes that she could teach 'that little creep' a lesson. Sumner studied the case carefully and found that Joshua's behavior was 'monopolistic' and 'unfair'. Therefore, he had Joshua appear before the Grand Jury to answer to charges that he broke Federal Anti-Trust laws. This week the Grand Jury indicted Joshua, he now faces a criminal trial. If convicted he could have his toys taken away from him. They would then be evenly distributed among the children in his neighborhood. Critics of Sumner's actions claim that because Joshua is only six years-old it is impossible for him to have formed the criminal intent necessary for him to be found guilty of breaking Anti-Trust laws. Said one critic, "This is an insane waste of tax-payer money. D.A. Sumner needs to get his head out of his ass." Sumner, who is up for reelection this year, answered his critics by saying, "I refuse to be soft on crime! I will pursue justice no matter how young the alleged criminal may be."

To: Bill who wrote (7298)	9/28/1998 11:15:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

DRUDGE REPORT TAPE #30 Exclusive The American public will soon hear Monica Lewinsky telling Linda Tripp how Vernon Jordan and President Clinton directly advised her to lie under oath! Lewinsky's stunning claims are said to be found on Audio Tape #30 in Starr's impeachment referral, according to congressional sources. Tape #30 is a face-to-face conversation between Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky, recorded under FBI auspices. The tape was made on January 13 at the RITZ-CARLTON in Virginia after Tripp was wired with a listening device attached to her inner-thigh. A female FBI agent put the wire on Tripp -- and took the wire off after the session, it has been learned. During the conversation, Tripp asked Lewinsky specific questions about the president's direct involvement in a cover-up. "I told her a whole bunch of lies that day," Lewinsky later testified to the grand jury. "I think I told her that -- you know, at various times the president and Mr. Jordan had told me to lie. That wasn't true." Tape #30 is being described by those who have heard it as one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the impeachment referral. "The tape gave me goosebumps," one investigator tells the DRUDGE REPORT. It is that tape that will likely be played in heavy rotation during any impeachment trial. [Tape #30 could even get a public airing before Election Day, predicts a well-placed Hill source. But only if there are October hearings.] In addition to Tape #30, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned there is another recorded conversation that features Lewinsky confessing that Vernon Jordan knew everything about her relationship with the president -- and the effort to cover it up. Under oath, both Clinton and Jordan denied Lewinsky's original version of events. FOOTNOTE: On Monday, the Judiciary Committee whittled down the final batch of documents now set for public release -- to four banker boxes, less than 6,000 pages of the 60,000 left from the independent counsel's referral. Why the block? Concern for the privacy of innocent people and the need to protect other ongoing criminal investigations, according to Hyde.

To: Bill who wrote (7298)	9/28/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

Weekly Commentary by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Posted 9/25/98 Washington, DC The institution of the presidency has taken a fearful beating thanks to the recklessness of Bill Clinton, and so has feminism. Perhaps there was a day when feminism was thought to be an elaborate advocacy group for the downtrodden American woman. Today it looks like nothing so much as an agency of the Democratic National Committee with special responsibility for defending the Boy President and besmirching his former lovers. Is there one whom the feminists are defending? The female casualties of Clinton's attentions are mounting--if that is the word. Increasing numbers speak of physical threats against them. The latest to suggest that she came to fear Clinton is Arkansas's former Miss America, Elizabeth Ward Gracen. For years she denied ever having had an affair with Clinton. Then after an ex-friend during the Paula Corbin Jones case stated in deposition that Clinton had forced himself on her, she changed her story. She admitted a brief affair but called it consensual. Now with the revelations of the Starr Report and the decline of Clinton's power, Gracen's acknowledgement has been revised. It does not sound so consensual. She has told the Toronto Sun that "I think Clinton is a very dangerous, manipulative man and I've had to be very careful....There was a lot of pressure on my family and friends, people were being staked out. I was a little bit afraid for my own safety at one point. It's not an area where your're safe." And she added by way of explanation for why she has changed her tune on Clinton, "I would never have said what I just told you a month ago." So, feminists, where are you? Miss Gracen seems to be saying that she was threatened into claiming that her affair with Clinton began consensually rather than after being ambushed in the backseat of a car. Moreover, when will the feminists take a stand for Kathleen Willey or how about Sally Perdue who was threatened with broken legs if she continued to talk of her affair with the feminists' favorite president? Perdue had to leave the country. Doubtless, many more women are going to come forward before the saga of our thuggish president is concluded. Will they have any defenders among the feminists? Consider the plight of Monica Lewinsky. Only the European press has shown any interest in her present condition as opposed to her lurid testimony. Yet she must be miserable. She has become a virtual recluse living mostly alone in her mother's two-bedroom ground-floor apartment at the Watergate complex. She no longer has the sagacious William Ginsburg to squire her around to smart restaurants. She is out of work, and her old champion is unwilling to get her a government job. According to the Daily Telegraph of London, "She remains holed up, eating pizzas, frozen yogurt and chocolate chip cookies in the Washington apartment." She no longer pops out to the gym but relies on an exercise bike to keep from fattening. She has her "ups and downs," a friend says. Her prospects for publishing a book have gone aglimmer. A possible modeling career in Italy is in limbo. And my agents tell me she cannot even hail a cab in Washington without attracting opprobrious hoots from pedestrians. One who saw her the other day stranded in the street reported that she looked "terrified." Even the cabbies from Bangladesh recognized her and sped on. What will the feminists do for Monica? Her father reports from California that "Her life is not productive at all....You go crazy sitting in a room, no matter how big." Reportedly she is on anti-depressants. Gentleman that I am, I have a solution that the feminists should have come up with long ago. Monica should sue the executive branch of the government for sexual harassment and--even better--for gender discrimination. Now that would be an interesting law suit. Clinton never would have treated her the way he did if she had been a he. How long would the executive branch fight such a suit? Clinton has, indeed, treated women very badly. From Gennifer to Monica, and so many others along the way. The thought of his many abuses of women suggests a thought that ought to sober up even the Boy President. When he leaves office he had better be prepared for a riot of lawsuits to come down on him. There is only one way he will be able to avoid this intolerable future: Cut a deal with the Democrats. Agree to resignation now with a full pardon for all the misbehavior he has committed. Any other path will lead to a life worse than disgrace. >>>Bob Tyrell columns can be accessed via Drudge.