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: James Strauss who wrote (9299)	12/13/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: Stock Watcher	Respond to of 13994

Sad day is right...Bill's not a great Pres., but he's the best we have....the alternative has the same ideology....just different packaging....and a zipper that appears to be glued shut....sad day indeed.

To: James Strauss who wrote (9299)	12/13/1998 8:13:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Friday, December 11, 1998 I COULDN'T PEEL MYSELF AWAY FROM THE RADIO It was a drive-thru afternoon for me yesterday. I just couldn't get out of the car. Not while David Schippers was making his presentation. When I got home I sat in the car and continued to listen for fear of missing something while I was walking into the house. Brilliant! Just absolutely brilliant! I can not imagine how any clear-thinking person could possibly sit and listen to Schippers' presentation and not come away with a clear understanding of why it is so essential that Bill Clinton face an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. Click Here for some of Schippers' testimony. We'll be talking about it this morning. CLINTON'S PLANS FOR MONICA LEWINSKY One thing that should be on everybody's mind as we move toward this impeachment vote … what would have happened to Monica Lewinsky if she had sent her blue dress to the dry cleaners? What would have become of sweet young Monica if she hadn't saved the presidue? The answer is clear. She was going to be trashed … and trashed thoroughly by the Clinton White House. Clinton was already planting the seeds with his henchman Sidney Blumenthal. Lewinsky was going to be branded as a stalker, a whacko, a sexual predator. They were going to destroy this woman in the eyes of the American public … all to save Clinton. This, from the man who is so good at feeling our pain. A presidency lost … for want of a good dry cleaning? There's something to be said for being a slob. HOW DOES HE DO THIS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE? Each member of the Judiciary Committee got ten minutes to state their position on the impeachment resolutions last night .. that's six hours worth. Nobody could listen to all of this. Let's concentrate, then, on the statement of John Conyers. He's the Democrat from Detroit who is the "ranking" member of the Judiciary committee. That means the highest ranking Democrat on the committee. Look, Conyers may be a real gentleman. He may be nice to his wife and kids and he may feed the dog a nice slice of cheese every day. That doesn't make him bright. Just what does Conyers talk about in his statement … let's look at a few of his statements and make some pithy comments about them. At the beginning of his statement Conyers goes through the same tired old menu of Clintonista claims. Ken Starr was obsessive. All the committee votes have been partisan. (This is a particularly neat Democratic and media trick. If the Democrats oppose a motion .. then the vote is partisan. How nifty.) Then Conyers claimed about the way the impeachment inquiry was run. He was upset because the majority would make decisions without telling him. He complained that the majority drew up the articles of impeachment without Democrat participation. Then he complained that he majority released those articles of impeachment. Then he complained that the articles of impeachment were vague. Same old tired Clintonista nonsense. Then he tried that line about the Republicans trying to overturn the results of two national elections. Not satisfied with that claim, he then said, twice, that the Republicans were attempting a legislative take-over of the executive branch. Legislative take-over? What in the hell is this Congressman talking about? If Clinton is impeached, and if the Senate convicts, Al Gore will be the new President of the United States. Can someone please tell me how making Al Gore the President amounts to a legislative take-over of the executive branch? Is this guy this stupid? Or is he just putting us on? Then Conyers starts whining about the fact that the Committee didn't call any witness to testify as to facts. Hold on here! The Democrats on that committee could have called these witnesses and cross examined them any time they wanted to! They didn't! Remember the last election? Remember that the Democrats were telling us that the election was not a referendum on the impeachment matter? Well, they seem to have changed their minds. Now they claim it was and Conyers says the voters said stop the investigation, stop the impeachment inquiry. Sorry, John. It's a government of law, not of men. Too bad you don't know that. Amazingly, Conyers then said that undermining the rule of law may not be impeachable conduct. Wow! That's interesting! Then on to some of the same old stuff. Conyers says that there is a difference between personal and official misconduct and a person's sex life should be personal …. Should not serve as the foundation for overturning the will of the American people. Come on, Conyers. Sex is not the foundation for this impeachment action is. Federal criminal law is. Perjury. Obstruction of Justice. Then Conyers pulled up the memories of a great Democrat victory of 1996. The government shutdown initiated by Clinton and successfully blamed on the congress. He says that if the House votes impeachment it will, once again, be shutting down the government. Does he mean that we're going to have to close all the museums in Washington and close the gates at our National parks? How absurd. If this guy really believes this nonsense, Detroit is unrepresented in the Congress. Conyers still wasn't through. Next he tells us that all proof should be set forth in the articles of impeachment. That would make the articles about 800 pages long. I'll just bet he would love that. He then said that this was all the fault of the Jones attorneys. He says that they entrapped Clinton and made him lie in the Jones deposition and that Clinton shouldn't be held responsible for that. Nearing the finish, Conyers blurted out that Clinton didn't know that Betty Currie was going to be a witness when he was coaching her. Nonsense. Of course he knew. He's a lawyer. Why else was he laying out her testimony for her? And this is the lead Democrat on that Committee? How sad for Detroit. BARNY FRANK Seemed to excuse the President's perjury. Barny says the president lied because he was embarrassed. Wow! That's pretty neat! We'll change the oath of office to read "I do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless the truth is embarrassing in which case I will lie, so help me God." THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO LEAN ON THIS NEW IDEA The Clintonistas are always looking for some new spin on this impeachment issue -- some way to save their lying president from impeachment. Here's the scam. There are about five Republicans seats in the house that will be held by Democrats next year. Presumably those Democrats would vote against impeachment. The Democrats are claiming, then, that these five Republicans really shouldn't vote because the people in their districts have clearly voted against impeachment. Question. If the Republicans had picked up seats. If there were Democrats in the congress who would not be there next month, do you think the Democrats would be saying that they shouldn't vote against impeachment because they're lame ducks? QUOTES: "Two more years of a neutered chief executive, whose promises are not trusted on Capitol hill and whose threats are not heeded by the Saddam husseins of this world, is a high price to pay for avoiding a Senate trial? [David Broder, Washington Post] "The president flagellates himself for that part of his conduct -- the affair, the misleading public statements, etc. -- that cannot get him in any further trouble, while denying any transgression on those allegations that still can." [Editorial, Washington Post] "He violated his oath of office and willfully sought to deny justice to another citizen. He violated the Constitution. To condone this would be to condemn our society to anarchy." [Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-CA] "Impeachment is merely a substitute for assassination." [Benjamin Franklin] ANOTHER APOLOGY SPEECH The word is that Clinton may trek to the Rose Garden today to make another apology speech to the American people. Have you noticed that Clinton's apologies seem to come at the his most desperate moments? Just when he thinks something terrible is going to happen to him he steps forward and issues another usually weak apology. He has NEVER issued such an apology to the American people from a position of strength. When he thinks the polls and the votes are with him -- he lies and stonewalls. Then, when he feels that the votes may be against him -- here comes another apology. SMEAR BOB BARR O.K. So Bob Barr made a speech to the Council of Conservative Citizens. That crowd is not too fond of interracial marriages. They believe these marriages amount to white genocide. Bob Barr has now said that he was not aware of these positions and he finds them to be "outrageous." This statement is not enough, however, to appease the Clintonistas. They will not abandon their desperate attempt to shift the attention from the sociopath to Bob Barr. There are plenty of black groups out there, the Nation of Islam, for one, who don't like the idea of interracial marriage. Some of these groups raise claims of black genocide. Have you EVER heard the media launch an assault on a politician who dares to speak to one of these groups? STORE THIS ONE AWAY FOR A FUTURE NIGHTMARE New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler in a turtleneck. PRESIDENT WANTS TO PAY A FINE So .. Clinton is pushing the idea of a censure with a hefty penalty. Remember what happened to Gingrich? He wasn't allowed to solicit contributions to help pay his penalty. He couldn't use campaign funds. He had to pay it out of his own pocket. What do you want to bet Clinton wouldn't be subject to the same restrictions as Gingrich. WHO WILL VOTE HOW ON THE IMPEACHMENT QUESTION This is lengthy, but you might find it informative. it is a list of which Republicans and Democrats are still up in the air or have decided to vote with the opposition along with their phone numbers. Republicans Who Plan To Vote Against Impeachment Chris Shays (CT) 202-225-5541 Mark Souder (IN) 202-225-4436 Amo Houghton (NY) 202-225-3161 Peter King (NY) 202-225-7896 Jack Quinn (NY) 202-225-3306 Democrats Who Plan To Vote For Impeachment Gene Taylor (MS) 202-225-5772 Ralph Hall (TX) 202-225-6673 Virgil Goode (VA) 202-225-4711 Republicans Who May Vote FOR Impeachment Jay Dickey (AR) 202-225-3772 Jim Kolbe (AZ) 202-225 2542 Tom Campbell (R-CA) 202-225-2631 Steve Horn (CA) 202-225 6676 Nancy Johnson (CT) 202-225 4476 Mike Castle (DE) 202-225-4165 Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL) 202-225-4211 Clay Shaw (FL) 202-225-3026 Saxby Chambliss (GA) 202-225 6531 John Porter (IL) 202-225-4835 Jim Bunning (KY) 202-225 3465 (plans to abstain) Wayne Gilchrest (MD) 202-225-5311 Connie Morella (MD) 202-225-5341 Bob Franks (NJ) 202-225-5361 Frank LoBiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572 Marge Roukema (R-NJ) 202-225-4465 Jim Saxton (R-NJ) 202-225-4765 Heather Wilson (NM) 202-225-6316 Michael Forbes (NY) 202-225-3826 Benjamin Gilman (NY) 202-225-3776 Sue Kelly (NY) 202-225-5441 Rick Lazio (NY) 202-225 3335 John McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611 David Hobson (OH) 202-225-4324 Bob Ney (OH) 202-225-6265 Jon Fox (PA) 202-225-6111 Scott Klug (WI) 202-225 2906 Democrats Who May Vote Against Impeachment Bud Cramer (AL) 202-225-4801 Gary Condit (CA) 202-225-6131 Carolyn Maloney (D-CT) 202-225-7944 Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 202-225-3806 Lee Hamilton (D-IN) 202-225-5315 Tim Roemer (D-IN) 202-225-3915 Chris John (LA) 202-225-2031 Pat Danner (MO) 202-225-7041 Mike McIntyre (NC) 202-225-2731 Jim Traficant (OH) 202-225-5261 Paul McHale (PA) 202-225-6411 John Murtha (D-PA) 202-225-2065 John Spratt (D-SC) 202-225-5501 Bart Gordon (D-TN) 202-225-4231 Charles Stenholm (TX) 202-225-6605 James Moran (D-VA) 202-225-4376 Jay Johnson (D-WI) 202-225-5665 boortz.com

To: James Strauss who wrote (9299)	12/13/1998 8:29:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Wednesday, December 9, 1998 WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ……. of the rule of law. Pardon me for a moment, I'm going to rant. The Democrats are absolutely desperate in their attempts to save Bill Clinton and his presidency. In this battle the Democrats have many two great allies. One is the left-wing mainstream New York press corps, the other is the predictable and dependable stupidity of the American people. Decades of media and political misinformation – the constant repetition of the falsehood that this country is a democracy – has taken its toll. The vast majority of people now believe this falsehood, and eagerly grant their allegiance to the will of the majority rather than the rule of law. And the media plays along. How else do you explain the proliferation of polls? Every night, every week, day after day after day we hear what the latest polls say. Fifty-six percent of the people say this. Sixty percent of the people think that. This is followed by all of the President's apologists throwing out their catch phrases and opinions on what "The American People" think. The polls don't matter ….. Only once in the past year have I heard any media figure indicate that the attitudes and opinions of the American people don't count when it comes to enforcing our laws. That happened the night Jack Krevorkian was indicted for murder. Dan Rather noted that the majority of Americans don't feel Krevorkian should be convicted of murder. Then he said that it was the law that counted here, not what majority of the people felt. Why hasn't Rather once --- just once --- issued the same caveat when talking about the polls and Clinton's felonies? Our schools have done a miserable law of detailing the drastic differences between the rule of law and a rule of the people. The fate of Jesus Christ was once left up to the rule of man. They freed Barabbas. Black Americans living in the South forty years ago were living in a society where the rule of law was ignored and the rule of man dominated. The law demanded equal treatment and access, the majority demanded colored rest rooms and segregated schools. The majority ruled. Blacks turned to the rule of law, and won. Now black Americans throwing their unconditional and complete support behind a man who has shunned and disgraced the very rule of law that brought them full participation in our society. What is there to protect your life if the exalted polls say the majority wants you to die? What is there to protect your liberty if the majority demands your imprisonment? What is there to save your property if your neighbors covet it? What is there to guarantee truthful and honest testimony in a legal proceeding that could affect your life in drastic ways? What is there to reign-in the quest for power on the part of those who control the police, the courts and the military? What is there to protect you from the brutality of government? To all of the above, the answer is the rule of law. Would you like to live in a society where polls decide your continued liberty, the ownership of your property, and whether or not you live or die? If you read the letters and essays of the people who founded this country, and who wrote our constitution, you will see that they had a health fear of the concept of majority rule. They recognized that majority rule was mob rule. They knew that the key to continued freedom was a system of laws that applied to everybody, from the president on down. They didn't use the word "democracy" one time in that document. You won't find it in the Declaration of Independence either. Following the will of the majority almost always results in the loss of basic individual rights to life, liberty and property. Just ask any black person who lived in Mississippi in 1950. A lynch mob is a democracy. The majority want the man to hang. A minority of one thinks it's a bad idea. There being no rule of law to cling to, the minority loses. To put it another way, democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. One of the biggest questions of our age is whether or not our country, as we presently know it, can survive this incredible ignorance on the part of the American people. And just who protects our rule of law? The rule tragedy here is that the man who has been accused of committing multiple felonies is the very same man who bears the most responsibility for upholding our rule of law. The President of the United States. Our chief law enforcement officer. The members of the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives are Trustees of our constitution and of our rule of law. They need to remember this and act accordingly. AND THE DEMOCRATS EXPLOIT THIS IGNORANCE I have a copy of a "Memorandum to Democratic Activists" from Doug Walker, the Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee. The subject is "Republican Impeachment Railroad." This memo says that the Republicans are proceeding with impeachment "contrary to the will of the American people." Under "Key Points" the memo says "By every measure, the American Public does not want the House of Representatives to impeach the president." So --- there you go. The Democratic party completely and absolutely ignoring the rule of law and suggesting, instead, that congress should act based on the will of the majority. If we had acted on the will of the majority, instead of the rule of law, in the last two presidential elections, Clinton would be relying on big-haired hash house waitresses in Arkansas for his sexual pleasures. Remember, to use the words of the Democrats, by every measure the majority of the American people did not want Bill Clinton to be our president. YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY Yesterday was to be the day when the President's men presented his case to the Judiciary Committee. There was not one witness, not one shred of evidence introduced to show that Clinton had not, in fact, committed multiple felonies. Not one word. One of the President's own witnesses said yesterday that lying under oath is a direct act on our judicial system. Well … do we now say that an attack by the chief law enforcement officer in this country on our judicial system isn't an impeachable offense? It's an attack on the very foundation of our Republic. Can anyone doubt that a chief executive who would attack our judicial system is a danger to our country? How do we answer that attack? Do we put him on trial for his job? Do we try to cleanse our system of someone who would attack our Judicial system … or do we let him skate. One of the most amazing moments yesterday was when a member of the Judiciary Committee that voted out articles of impeachment on Richard Nixon, Elizabeth Holtzman, said that a similar action against Bill Clinton would paralyze our government. It would interfere with the operation of the Supreme Court. It would prevent the congress of the United States form addressing urgent needs. Question – if that is true today, why wasn't it true in 24 years ago when she, a Democrat, voted "yea" on impeachment against Nixon? A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT Robert Drinan, the left-wing radical Catholic Priest who sat on Nixon's impeachment committee, came out with a new "right" for Americans yesterday. It seems we have a "right" to be heard by the impeachment committee. I wonder if we have a similar "right" to be heard by every grand jury in this nation when they decide on whether or not to indict a criminal? boortz.com

To: James Strauss who wrote (9299)	12/13/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Clinton's Dolly snubbed by Hyde Jones witness was summoned to testify about perjury DECEMBER 11 1998 © 1998 WorldNetDaily.com House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde blocked the dramatic appearance of a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case who was set to provide new evidence that President Clinton committed additional counts of perjury in his testimony about their relationship. Dolly Kyle Browning, an attorney from Texas, has known Clinton since he was 12 and she was 11. She was called as a witness for Jones, and testified, despite what she describes as pressure from the White House. Browning was called to make an appearance before the committee yesterday during majority counsel David L. Schippers' presentation -- an appearance that was, according to sources, nixed by Hyde. Browning was to offer evidence demonstrating that Clinton lied under oath in a three-page memorandum he drafted in his own handwriting about her and their relationship as part of the Jones' case. "On November 30, 1998, I was brought to Washington by investigators for the Judiciary Committee, at their request and expense," Browning said in a sworn declaration for the committee submitted today. "After questioning me extensively, they went to Hot Springs, Arkansas and obtained affidavits in support of my testimony from a randomly chosen list of impartial witnesses. These affidavits clearly support the testimony I gave under oath in the Jones case, and they expose in part the lies told by the Honorable President under oath in the Jones case. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other witnesses who could have provided similar testimony." Browning expressed frustration at being called to Washington and then being denied an opportunity to testify. She has been sitting in Washington since Wednesday. "The 'leadership' of the Judiciary Committee apparently decided that my testimony was not necessary for their purposes," she said in her declaration. "In the meantime, I have watched the Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings on television and have listened to many members (say) that there is no live witness to testify about the lies and obstruction of justice, and no 'proof' upon which they could base a vote for impeachment." To that she states: "I am a live witness, and I have incontrovertible proof that the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice in an attempt to deny an American citizen, Paula Corbin Jones, of her day in court. Although the Jones case has now been settled, I have asked my attorneys to file a motion to hold the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton in criminal contempt for the lies that he told under oath, and for the fraud that he perpetrated upon a federal court." Browning is represented by Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch, which has focused much attention on Clinton administration corruption. On Monday, Judicial Watch is scheduled to depose witness Linda Tripp. "As members of the Legislative Branch, you are in a unique position of righting this wrong," Browning continued in her declaration to the committee. "I believe that many of you truly want to 'vote your conscience.' But many of you have been deprived of vital information that would make it an 'informed' vote. You have been deprived of information about the FBI files. You have been deprived of information about campaign funds from China. You have been deprived of information from me that is incontrovertible proof of obstruction of justice. "You are left with testimony about Monica Lewinsky -- a girl younger than my own three daughters -- who was blatantly used by the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton, and then discarded when she became a political liability. What you have seen, read, and heard about this should be enough to impeach, but many of you have demanded more. Here it is. Many of you have a vague, uneasy feeling that you are being used for political purposes. You are right. Many of you are frustrated because you know that there is more 'proof' that is being officially withheld from you. Right again." The declaration of Browning signals a split between Schippers and Hyde over strategy. Schippers would like to take a much more aggressive and open-ended approach in the impeachment inquiry. Hyde is more cautious. worldnetdaily.com

To: James Strauss who wrote (9299)	12/14/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: James Strauss	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Sex vs Guns To Your Enemies... Which Is The Greater Crime??? ***************************************************************** Let's contrast the Reagan Iran Contra situation and the current Clinton sex scandal... What is more injurious to the security of America ? Reagan's involvement with giving arms to the Iranians? Clinton having sex in the oval office? Let's assume they both lied to congress... Obviously, giving arms to a terrorist nation smacks of treason... Yet, none of the high and mighty Clinton accusers will even acknowledge that sad chapter in our American Presidency... For those too young to remember... The Iranians stormed the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran and took Americans hostage in the late 1970's... The way we feel about Sadddam Hussein today we felt about Iran then... So, imagine if Clinton was secretly giving arms to Sadddam Hussein right now... What do you think the Republican led Congress would do with that information??? They'd forget about Monica and go full speed ahead with Saddamgate... I'm using this analogy just to show the partisan actions of the Republican majority in Congress... If they don't represent the wishes of the majority of the American people, who do they represent??? Jim