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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7898)	10/8/1998 1:14:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, I'm a former City Hall reporter. If the mayor of the city I covered were getting it on with an intern, essentially a public employee, in a public building on public time, I'm afraid I would not consider it a private affair, and if I had evidence of it, I would write a story about it. If Clinton were getting it on one of those Hollywood types he's always hanging out with at one of their houses along the beach in Malibu, that would be a private matter. I agree with you, however, that the investigation was fundamentally flawed and illegal. However, this isn't a typical courthouse criminal prosecution, and no one's going to throw the case out on technicalities, as they often do when DAs and cops overstep the law. So the point is sort of moot as far as Clinton is concerned. They've got good stuff on Clinton, not having to do with sex, but on the obstruction of justice charges. The evidence may not hold up in a court of law--there's no smoking gun, there's no one testifying that Clinton told them to lie, there's no written communique or recorded conversation showing Clinton trying to obstruct justice. But it's enough to sustain an argument in favor of impeachment, otherwise they would have tried to impeach him four years ago. Remember all those "Impeach Hillary" bumper stickers people stuck on their cars? The Congressman Barrfs of the Hill have been lusting after Bill for some time, but haven't had the goods. So it essentially comes down to pure political maneuvering. The Republicans want to at least try to oust Clinton because they think it will galvanize their party: strengthen them in their fundraising efforts, boost their vote potential, and put the Democrats in disarray. Will Clinton be able to convince enough Democrats that they he's worth their effort? It's not certain. What if all the Democrats suddenly joined forces with the Republicans in wanting Clinton's removal? Wouldn't that blunt the political and ideological effect of the Republican's impeachment inquiry? Maybe that's the way out of this thing... As for the Dow--I follow the markets very closely. Every time there's good news for Clinton they tick up a bit, every time there's bad news they tick down a bit. I believe it has to do with perceptions of political stability- in the world's largest and most powerful market. I would love to hear what people think the effect of this whole thing on the market would be.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7898)	10/8/1998 8:29:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Michelle: What you should have said was that it is only unclear to you that a CEO of any publicly traded company would be fired for such behavior. The rest of us live in the real world. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7898)	10/8/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, I'm not sure where "here" is in your post, but someone ought to take a look at your CEO's contract and if there isn't a moral turpitude clause, the board is exposing the company to significant risk. In fact, all of the senior executives should have those kinds of clauses in their contracts - you may not be able to get litigation or liability insurance coverage for the company if they don't. If your investing in a company that doesn't have the insurance to cover the possible whacko boss, the losses in a civil case or even a negotiated settlement can be pretty steep. As for no one delving into a CEO's private affairs - hogwash. There are investigative firms that do that for a living. Would you turn the reins of a billion-a-year company over to someone you didn't know anything about? Well, then again, I guess you would. Mr. K.