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: Sam P. who wrote (18776)	12/12/1998 3:53:00 PM
From: steve kammerer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Why isn't there debate on: 1. Why did President have over 900 files of FBI containing RAW data. It has to be for blackmail. Is that happening now? 2.Who hired Craig Livingston? Did he just walk into the White House and get the FBI to give files? Funny, he worked for Clinton before he became President doing dirty tricks. 3.Not only firing the travel office people but using the entire force of the government to harass them when they complained. IRS audits, Justice dept putting them on tria for fraud? 4. Changing rules for who blocks secrret technology going to China. Used to be State Dept and Defense Dept had veto on transferring technology. Clinton changed that to Ron Brown's Commerce Dept. 5. Makeing speech claiming' "No missiles being pointed at US citizens anymore". Then after China has missile tecnology, he says They had missiles pointed at US all along. Then why say that their are none in original speech. 6. Why does President keep lying and changing stry on other items not connected with theis current scandal? stevek

To: Sam P. who wrote (18776)	12/12/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Sam, check out #reply-6807091 (post #18780 on this thread). It provides links to debate texts published in NYTimes (which I have to confess I overlooked). Thus, the situation does not seem quite as bad to me as it does to you. Anyone with an interest in the impeachment proceedings could easily find all the coverage he/she wanted in the media. True, many media outlets may have downplayed the proceedings, but I would guess it was for commercial reasons. They may have figured that the public already had such a bellyfull of impeachment talk that it did not want to tune in to any more. In general, we tend either to overdo (overkill) the news, or to underdo (underkill) it. jbe