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: Axxel who wrote (8837)	11/7/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

The Manchurian Candidate The Conservative Monitor Nov 1998 WJ Rayment In the late fifties or early sixties there was a movie called the Manchurian Candidate. It was a political thriller starring Laurence Harvey and ol' Blue Eyes himself, Frank Sinatra (RIP). The plain skinny on the movie, after all the plot twists, is that the Communist Chinese Government is attempting to influence American politics by finagling their mole into the presidency. The movie is far fetched in that it relies on hypnotism and mind control to account for the abhorrent actions of the bad guys. Interesting that when a real Manchurian Candidate - a president in the hip pocket of the Chinese Government - comes to light, fancy explanations are unnecessary. The facts are pretty straight forward. The Clinton/Gore campaign took money from the red Chinese Army through Liu Chaioying. They also took big donations from the chairman of Loral Corporation - a company trying to sell high technology to the Chinese Military. President Clinton, over the objections of advisors, allowed the transfer of military technology to the Chinese. The Chinese put this technology to use to target warheads against the United States, a capability that the Chinese military did not have before our erstwhile president became involved in the matter. The motivation of the president? - a few hundred thousand for his campaign. It seems the president sold out his country for less than the price of a house in Beverly Hills. If allegations are true, he was bought pretty cheap. The motivations of the Chinese are obvious - military power. The increase in capability by the Chinese, besides its ominous consequences for the US, bodes ill for the rest of the world. China's new American bought technology has sparked a nuclear arms race in Asia. India has been compelled by the hostile Chinese to dedicate themselves to their own nuclear program, culminating in nuclear tests within the last few weeks. This, in turn, has pushed the Pakistanis to work on their nuke program and to look to China for help. Meanwhile North Korea is looking to renew its contribution to the proliferation of nuclear arms in the area. In the movie, "The Manchurian Candidate", the outcome, if the Chinese candidate became president, was portrayed as vague and menacing. Well, now we know what happens, the worst possible outcome, a nuclear proliferation in an out of control spiral whose consequences could be devastating to all mankind and a definite diminution of US security. WJRayment freerepublic.com

To: Axxel who wrote (8837)	11/7/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Open Letter to Hillary Clinton Mario's Cyberspace from Croatia April 25th, 1997 Rep. Bob Barr Open letter to Mrs. Hillary Clinton Dear Mrs. Clinton: In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a report produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing a scholar mmorandum setting forth the "constitutional grounds for presidential impeachmnt." You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon would leave offic disgraced , having witnessed articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in part on your report. Relevant Today I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to have let personal animus influence your work product, at least not the final, published report. In fact, the report you and your colleagues produced appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is every bit as relevant today as it was 23 years ago. I presume -- but I must ask whether -- you stand by your research and analysis today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the framers of our constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the tools used by the English" to make government "more responsive and responsible" (page 4 of your report). You also noted then -- clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment as a tool to correct "corruption in office" that "alleged damage to the state," was "not necessarily limited to common law or statutory ... Crimes" (page 7) You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention described the executive (that is, the president) as not being above the law, but rather "in his public character" subject to it "by impeachment" (page 9) You also -- quite correctly -- noted then that the constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing the circumstances under which a president could be impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was substituted for George Mason's less precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: "Maladministration" (page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12). I applaud the extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them (page 12 once again). Magnificent research! Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust" that is "of a nature ... POLITICAL [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of your report). Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional drafting documents themselves, you find support for your properly broad interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in no less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833) supporting your proposition that "impeachment ... applies to offenses of a political character ... [that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty" (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could not have said it better. You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has been employed in our country's history "placed little emphasis on criminal conduct" and were used to remove public officials who had "seriously undermined public confidence" through their "course of conduct" (page 21). Clear Basis Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the House should take but the first step in determining whether impeachment might lie against President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and improper administration of his duties, little did I realize your scholarly work 23 years ago would provide clear historical and legal basis and precedent for my proposition. Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical to those I use today. For example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that "mpeachment is the first step in a remedial process" (page 24 of your report) to correct "serious offenses" that "subvert" our government and "undermine the integrity of office" (page 26). Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning our inquiry. Sincerely, Bob Barr (R., GA.) Member of Congress Rep. Barr (R., Ga.) serves on the House Judiciary and Government Reform Committees. He was the U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Georgia under Presidents Reagan and Bush His open letter appeared in the Wall Street Journal, on April 25, 1997 freerepublic.com

To: Axxel who wrote (8837)	11/7/1998 4:51:00 PM
From: dfloydr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Right on! Here in AZ the religious right was ignored by Gov. Jane Hull and as a result she picked up almost all republicans and 30% of the democratic vote and swept into office. 30% of the democrats must be about ten times as many voters as the religious right can deliver to the voting booths on a good day. By placing herself where the majority lives, she coralled them votes in in droves. The religious right probably voted for her anyway as they had no where else to go. Oddly, I note the papers are full of articles citing members of the religious right claiming that the reason Republicans lost was because they did not hammer home the anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda hard enough. Hogwash. I count 21 Republicans amongst my contacts who refuse to vote for anyone espousing those issues. Here in AZ two candidates for the AG job flirted with those issues and both got shot down in flames, one in the primaries and the other on election day, and a democratic walked away with the job. The sooner Republicans leave the fundamentalist Christian agenda to the fundamentalist Christians and get back to issues relevant to the majority, the sooner they will get back to winning office. Just imagine what would happen to the Republican vote if they took up some Bhuddist beliefs or Moslem beliefs or Voodoo beliefs and made them the center piece of their candidacy ... preposterous you say?. It is just as crazy to get in bed with the Christian right issues. The result is an exclusionary policy and that don't win elections.

To: Axxel who wrote (8837)	11/7/1998 6:07:00 PM
From: pz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

Backup, <<<...Republicans are so incredibly stupid, the Green Party will have more power than them in 20 years...and you heard it here first.>>> Unfortunately you are probably right. As one of the Christian conservatives it saddens me to see the country going down the toilet. Remember the good old days when a person's word meant something? And people had morals and cared for one another. Like I say....the country is going down the toilet, unless their are Godly men and women to lead it. I don't agree with everything the Republicans have done, but at least they are trying to bring the country back to it's moral base....if it's not too late. Regards, PZ