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: ILCUL8R who wrote (7698)	10/4/1998 12:01:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer	Respond to of 13994

Amnesty puts US in the dock over human rights record By Christina Lamb in London and James Langton in New York telegraph.co.uk Excerpts: THE United States government is planning a furious rebuttal to a stinging denunciation of its human rights record by Amnesty International. For the first time, the London-based human rights agency has made the US the target of its worldwide campaign, accusing it of double standards and creating a climate "in which human rights violations thrive". It claims that authorities pay out millions of dollars in damages rather than actually tackle the problem or institute any form of accountability. The report accuses the US of refusing to recognise the primacy of international law, reserving the right to use death penalty against juveniles, not paying its dues to the UN, to which it now owes over a billion dollars, and being one of only two countries (along with Somalia) that has failed to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quick; somebody tell me one more time how it's "for the children." RS

To: ILCUL8R who wrote (7698)	10/4/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Richard, I think I see where you're coming from now. You're questioning motives, and that's perfectly legitimate. I tend to view Scaife the same way I view Tripp. Are their motives honorable or dishonorable? I don't know, but does it make any difference in the bigger picture if the emergence of the truth is served? G. W.

To: ILCUL8R who wrote (7698)	10/4/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>>For example, David Hale, the key witness against President Clinton in Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation, is a known felon and it didn't take much sleuthing to uncover that he also easily could be a >>man with NO principles, and no sense of shame<< Actually, Hale has shown that he does have principles and a sense of shame and has shown that by aiding the IC's case, knowing that Clinton's secret police would try to destroy him. In contrast Webster Hubbell, a high level felon is still a Clinton crony and got a $700,000 payoff for his silence and cooperation in the Whitewater coverup. No, events have shown that it is Clinton who is a man with no principles or sense of shame as he has declared war on the US system of justice and continues to lie. Scaife's involvement is that he financed investigative journalism to reveal the true Bill Clinton, the one that the establishment media had decided to spike. >>which shows me that Scaife, et.al., were not equal opportunity haters. David Hale has no connection Scaife and even if he did Hale doesn't wield the power of the most powerful office on Earth. Clinton's crimes are a threat to the Constitution, Hale's never were. In the ongoing quest for the truth the prevalence of "haters" have been shown to be disproportionately in the Clinton camp.