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: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (8089)	10/9/1998 12:48:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Well now I think you finally get it. Yes the Clintons' have no "real" net worth, and as you say, "they are all generally paid for out of funds established and bankrolled by the rich Hollywood and trial lawyer friends." The best analogy I could give for the Clintons' would be the "kept woman or man" , they provide certain "valuable" services in exchange for a high standard of living that neither one could realistically aspire to on their own. BTW, I'm a registered Independent. Basically I vote for candidates that run on a small government, low taxation platform. I have voted for Democrats. Clinton represents the worst of what is wrong with this country's government intervention in business, over- taxation, over- regulation, and maintenance and expansion the already bloated, status quo federal bureaucracy. bp

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (8089)	10/10/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 13994

Hi Borzou Daragahi; About that $100,000 that Hillary made in the commodities market. I was unaware that she later lost it. Could you post a link or something? My understanding was that the broker who handled the deal was later charged with illegally moving money between accounts by assigning trades after the fact. In other words, giving winning trades to the receiver, and losing trades to the giver. All indications are that this is how the First Lady came to turn $1000 into $100,000 in violation of all rules regarding minimum equity for account equity, etc. The donor in the First Lady's case was Tyson. Unfortunately for Starr, this was done sufficiently far in the past that a statute of limitations has passed. Is there a link to a more complete understanding of this scandal, anyone? By the way, I think the two parties perform an admirable service to the country by bringing to light the criminal behavior performed by the other party. This is the wonderful thing that distinguishes the United States from countries where everything is controlled by a single party. Influence peddling is a bad idea for the country regardless of who does it. Same with perjury, etc. To say that everything one party has ever done is okay for the other party to do is to say that two wrongs make a right. I'm sure that you are reminding Republicans that their party members have not been pure, but are not doing this in order to explain or excuse the actions of the Democrats. Republicans know all about having to admit to scandals. We had Nixon. -- Carl

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (8089)	10/11/1998 8:45:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

She didn't lose $ 100,000 in the commodities. She was given $ 100,000 in profits and the Tysons account was allocated the losses. She was also given $ 100,000 from an educational foundation on which she served on the board; no other members of the board, including Mario Cuomo, received any money. There's plenty more on Clinton graft, but I don't have the time. They're biggest donors are the Tysons Foods, ADM (for the ethanol fuel over methanol fuel decision), the trial lawyers, and the NEA.