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: Les H who wrote (17581)	12/7/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Oh Les. You spoil sport. They all do it. So its OK. JLA

To: Les H who wrote (17581)	12/7/1998 10:37:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

... the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the gift had to be motivated not only by the recipient's position, but by some official act, either a reward for a past act, or an inducement for a future one. ... Ted Wells, one of Espy's lawyers, sought to demolish Smaltz's case during closing argument to the jury that the prosecution presented no witnesses who testified his client ever made a decision based on anything he ever received. Sounds like the prosecution didn't make their case, Les. Innuendo isn't usually considered evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, is it? You want to ban politicians from the luxury boxes, good luck. It might crimp the income of all those sports franchise owners, who, being rich guys and good Republicans mostly, might object. Aside from which, this is all pretty mundane money compared to the general campaign finance cesspool. Everybody feeds at that troth, but one side seems to always come out way ahead. Oink Oink. Cheers, Dan.

To: Les H who wrote (17581)	12/7/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: melinda abplanalp	Respond to of 67261

Nice comments. Did you want to do an IQ test?

To: Les H who wrote (17581)	12/7/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well Les, as far as Im concerned none of the following items (which represent 50% of the listed items in your post) represent inappropriate "gifts". With regards to sporting events, I get to go to them sometimes and sit in the box, which is very expensive. Its because these accounting firms Price,Anderson,KPMG etc buy these boxes every year for clients. I am occasionally in a position to hire some of their people so if the box is free they let me know and sometimes I go. BIG DEAL. And that US Open price looks pretty suspicious to me, a retail price for a box maybe? (except nobody actually pays that - ever) $6000. for tickets to clinton innauguration dinner? You call that an inappropriate gift? All of these items seem ok to me, at worst perhaps a misjudgement on Espys part. These are the kind of things opposing politicians use in campaigning to draw attention to some possible bias' etc. This is not what I call corruption! Sun-Diamond Growers Cooperative: -- $4,200 U.S. Open tennis tickets -- $222 tickets to New York Knicks game Tyson Foods Inc: -- $6,000 tickets to President Clinton's inaugural dinner -- $1,726 lodging and entertainment at Tyson birthday party -- $110 tickets to Dallas Cowboys play-off game Quaker Oats: -- $90 tickets to Chicago Bulls championship game Oglethorpe Power/Smith Barney/EOP Group Inc: -- $2,200 tickets to 1994 Super Bowl