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 (16742)	12/2/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I heard at least one pundit say that this more than anything cost Gingrich his job. To flog my favorite old quote on the subject, that seems to be what Newt came to understand himself. Taking his share of the blame for his party's losses, the Georgia Republican said he had misjudged how the public would recoil from the Clinton scandal and how the scandal would drown out other Republican themes. "I mean I totally underestimated the degree to which people would just get sick of 24-hour-a-day talk television and talk radio and then the degree to which this whole scandal became just sort of disgusting by sheer repetition," Gingrich said. (from nytimes.com ). Compare and contrast: Yes, you are a partisan hater. Gingrich is running a professional non partisan inquiry, standing on the floor of the house shutting up Congressmen who want to rant about Clinton's misdeeds, and you produce an article with a bunch of unsubstantiated Gingrich bashing. Tee hee, I will diplomatically leave out the attribution and tag line on that one, this time. I can't resist a bit from the "unsubstantiated Gingrich bashing." of the time, though. (dateline 9/18) But behind the scenes, according to other Republican lawmakers, not a step is taken or a decision made without the approval of Gingrich, possibly the most partisan and certainly the most dominant speaker in the last generation. "Look, the speaker is the speaker," said the chairman of an important committee who insisted on anonymity. "He calls all the shots. If tapes are going to be released, it's his decision. If hearings are going to be held, he will decide. He consults with us. He listens to us. But he makes the calls." At a closed meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut expressed concern about the release of sexually explicit portions of the videotape of the president's grand jury testimony. Gingrich -- angry, according to some who were there, or merely firm, according to others -- rose to his feet and declared that the House had already voted to make the material public and that Republicans were not going to back down in the face of complaints from the White House and Democrats in Congress. Gingrich called the president a "misogynist," a person who hates women. (http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/091898clinton-gingrich.html) Alas poor Newt, we knew him well. Cheers, Dan.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16742)	12/2/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>Johannes, how convenient that you left off the important (middle) sentence of my statement, and included only the fringes you needed to make your point. I said, I take responsibility for the actions of people around me and for any activity under my watch.< The sentence is not important as it merely reiterates the responsibility of the person in command for any activity under his watch. What Congress does is not within the purview of the Independent Counsel. Once Starr's report was given to Congress, Congress itself became responsible for what it decided to do with it. Starr could have given further advice to Congress against its being published, but he had no obligation, moral or otherwise, to do so. This is really quite elementary. >The point being, a quality individual should never hide behind a reporting structure to determine what he should or should not do. That is what the right is doing when they say things like, Starr didnt release the document, "Congress" (used as a nameless faceless entity) did it.< What the "right" is doing is irrelevant, and I summarily reject your ability to judge quality where people are concerned. The issue at hand here is whether one can with reason condemn Kenneth Starr on the basis of what Congress has done. One cannot. >I dont care if Starr is subordinate to Congress or not....< Thus the problem with your "thinking". >Well you might be correct my analogy represents a backwards reporting structure of Starr/Congress etc. My point is, if someone around me tries to publish inappropriate material on the internet, whoever they are, and I know about it, it then becomes my responsibility to do what I can to stop it.< The problems with this statement are legion. I have not time to describe them all. I will only say that if your superiors charge you with investigating possible wrongdoing by someone, and in the course of your investigation you find evidence of wrongdoing, and if then you give that evidence to your superiors, and should you know they will be conducting legal activities with the evidence, then you cannot be held responsible for anything concerning what those superiors decide to do. >And on this issue of the Starr report on the internet, republicans seem to be dodging any personal responsibility whatsoever. < What the Republicans are doing is quite irrelevant to whether Starr is responsible for the publishing of his report on the Internet. Congress made the report public, this, not without the help of Democrats. >You'd be better off defending the Starr report vehemently and standing by the decision to publish instead of doing what you are doing which is pointing the finger at "Congress".< This is irrelevant. I do support the Starr report, this, not to the exclusion of my pointing out the fact Ken Starr had no responsibility for what Congress did. >BTW I heard at least one pundit say that this more than anything cost Gingrich his job.< This is irrelevant.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16742)	12/2/1998 6:17:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The fact is, Starr produced the document - he knew what was in there. Yes, it is downright silly to pretend that Starr's loyalties don't lie with the Republican party. And yet, we see legions of idiots doing that, right here on this thread! The American people won't forget the fact that if anything seemed favorable to the Republicans, it was in the document! The other things (i.e. zilch on Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate etc.) came after the elections. Which is also why I strongly believe that there will be no more startling revelations from Starr. He is one shagged-out dick -- pardon my French!