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: j g cordes who wrote (8151)	10/12/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

From the Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" column: washtimes.com When President Clinton wants to silence his critics, he sends first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the job. Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat, discovered that recently, according to the latest issue of Newsweek magazine. Mr. Moran had been criticizing Mr. Clinton on television, and the president sent the first lady to put a stop to it. At a fund-raising dinner, Mrs. Clinton approached Mr. Moran's chief of staff. "Why is Jim doing this to us?" the first lady demanded, according to Newsweek. "Because of what the president did to you," the aide replied. "Ask Jim to call me," Mrs. Clinton said. When he did call her, Mr. Moran told Mrs. Clinton her husband "was a philanderer and worse," Newsweek reports. And if Mr. Moran was her older brother, he said, "He would have taken Clinton behind the house and broken his nose," the magazine adds. Newsweek reports that Mrs. Clinton's only response was to lobby Mr. Moran against supporting Republican plans for an impeachment inquiry. According to Votewatch, it didn't work. Moran voted FOR the inquiry. pathfinder.com RS

To: j g cordes who wrote (8151)	10/12/1998 9:42:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>>I agree with your principles but tell me, where as a society do we draw the line. At the very least with a President Clinton who is a perjurer, a witness tamperer, a suborner of perjury. Clinton has assaulted and undermined our system of justice for his own personal designs, the very system he took his oath of office to protect and defend. October 12, 1998 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE Shattering Shibboleths WASHINGTON -- Let's cut to impeachment's chase. Impeachment myth No. 1:Congress will never vote to impeach or remove a President in the teeth of opinion polls. Reality: Here comes the impeachment election. If Democrats take the House, Clinton's conduct is effectively condoned. Contrariwise, if Republican majorities grow, that vote would stand as the voice of the people no matter what opinion polls show. 2.The shortened attention span of the American people dictates Henry Hyde's "New Year's Resolution" -- hasty hearings and a snap decision from this Congress this year. No Thanksgiving break? No Christmas? This sordid story is hungry for heroes, and as Congress provides new household names, a new cast of characters -- white hats as well as villains -- will achieve fame and fascinate us all. The civic debate should become more elevated and less prurient as weighty constitutional issues unfold on television. 3.The Judiciary Committee will limit itself to digesting and acting upon only the evidence submitted so far by the Independent Counsel. A Republican House ignoring new information about abuses of power in Travelgate and Filegate and obstruction in Whitewater? A newly expanded Judiciary staff refusing to examine evidence of bribery (a most impeachable offense) in illegal campaign fund-raising from Asia? C'mon. 4.People are tired of lies about sex and want to move on. That may be what people say while transfixed by the drama of egregious misconduct at the top. Sex perjury by itself may not be cause enough to remove a President, but abuses add up, and the prospect of Jane Doe No. 5 or Intern No. 2 or some other "harassed from the past" gives Democrats the Willeys. 5.Democrats will call Ken Starr as a witness and turn hearings into a circus investigating the investigator. The maligned Independent Counsel may turn out to be a cool, persuasive witness and not a priggish Savonarola. Monica may exhibit unexpected dignity. And if prosecutor and chief witness are called before Congress, why not the grand jury forewoman -- on the theory that seeking truth about a potential Presidential conspirator takes precedence over indictments? 6.The simple pleasures of Monicagate can't hold a candle to the serious abuses of Watergate. That's because we've only just begun. Watergate is remembered for Nixon's cover-up that came to light long after a break-in he knew nothing about. Starr has much to report or miscreants to indict after Nov. 3. The committee has not yet started taking depositions, and Clinton cannot claim privilege for aides like Lindsey and Blumenthal, or his lawyers' hired privacy-penetrators Terry Lenzner and Jack Palladino, without adding fuel to the impeachment fires. 7.Democrats will easily find 34 loyalist votes in the Senate to resist removal in the spring. The most ominous sentence of last week came from the veteran Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, leading preserver of the legislative branch's prerogatives. After Clintonites foolishly tried to assemble 34 senatorial signatures to prejudge and moot a House impeachment inquiry, he warned: "Don't tamper with this jury." On constitutional matters, Byrd has a small but respectful Democratic following in the Senate club; they are not in anybody's bag. 8.With Asia and Russia in economic turmoil, refugees about to freeze in Kosovo and Saddam building weapons while thumbing his nose at the U.N., we cannot afford the distraction of firing our reckless leader. A superpower should be able to walk and chew up a President at the same time. Turn the myth on its head: Mr. Clinton, who studiously avoided dealing with these crises before the impeachment inquiry, may finally have an incentive to address them -- if only to look Presidential. Advocates of his ouster will support him -- if only to appear nonpartisan. 9.Cool heads will prevail to levy punishment short of removal. Congress may cluck-cluck at, but is forbidden to punish, a nonmember. Clinton, who still thinks he can deny his way out of anything, will not further weaken the Presidency by bargaining for extra-constitutional humiliation. He stands ready, to his credit, to take his chances on a Senate trial. If he loses, he will gain what he has sought all his life: a unique and indelible place in American history. nytimes.com

To: j g cordes who wrote (8151)	10/12/1998 2:28:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Jim, I agree it's not always clear cut. But I would offer this. Our culture and ethics clearly do not support having sex in the Oval office with an intern. Most people would feel that is wrong. Especially wrong because he is a married man and it was happening on company time. That's our place of sacred trust. We elect someone under the assumption that certain values and codes of behavior will be adhered to there. Trust, is implicit in this relationship. Parents send their young adults to internships all over the world. Most would not support the boss having sex with their daughter while involved in a power relationship of learning. They trust older men to exercise maturity and sound judgment when confronted with batting eyes to be professionals. Of course it happens at times, but we should not accept it happening in the Oval Office from the President of the United States. Allowing him to serve out his term is akin to accepting this behavior. I believe we need to say, not in our Oval Office, not in our nation, not with our young adults Mr. President. The only way to clearly say this is to fire him. Our young woman studying for their careers are not some sex-toy to be used by Presidents for their sodomistic pleasures. I still cannot understand why more people are not outraged over this! Clinton has turned the Oval Office into one of the old English Kings harems. I believe we have a higher standard than this? Most of the Democrats in Congress, desperate for campaign contributions are supporting this behavior. Shame on them for bringing the honor of the Presidency to this low level. Shame on them for careing more about their jobs than about our country. Every member of Congress knows he lied in court, every member of Congress knows he lied to the American people. Shame indeed if they ignore their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Michael