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: Kaliico who wrote (9507)	12/16/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Kaliico, I suggest you get the book "BOY CLINTON" by Emmett Tyrell and look at page 210. According to the book, in the late 1980s Hillary Clinton, who was on the board of the New World Foundation, was using the organization to funnel money to the PLO and El Salvador's communist guerrillas. Btw, Bill Clinton was govenor of Arkansas at the time. Don't take my word for it, get the book and read it for yourself. But, I must warn you. There is more, much more.

To: Kaliico who wrote (9507)	12/16/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Wednesday, December 16, 1998 Click Here for latest Impeachment head count! A DEMOCRATIC PLOY? Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman was featured on television last night warning that nobody knows whether or not there are enough votes in the Senate to convict on impeachment. So, why was he issuing this warning? Actually, it's a warning to Republicans. This is a clever Democratic ploy to sway undecided votes in the House … nothing more. You see, a vote to impeach is the equivalent to a vote to bind someone over for trial. It is not a finding of guilt. Lieberman and the Democrats want to be able to make the argument that a vote to impeach is more than that. They want to say that a vote to impeach is actually a vote to remove the president. If they push this idea that there may be enough votes in the Senate to kick the liar out, they will have the wiggle room to say that the evil House Republicans voted to remove Clinton from office. CENSURE? IT'S BEEN TRIED BEFORE The idea of a censure of Bill Clinton just won't go away. One of the reasons the Democrats like this idea so much is because they remember President Andrew Jackson. He was censured by the congress. Then, when Jackson's party took control of the congress in the very next election they voted to repeal the censure. This is their plan for Clinton. AND ABOUT THAT $2,000,000 FINE What a joke this one is. Nailing Clinton with a $2 million fine. Remember the $300,000 penalty that Gingrich had to pay after that ethics complaint? When the idea was floated that Gingrich would pay the fine with donations from supporters the Democrats went wild. No way! Newt would have to pay the fine out of his own pocket. No donations! Anyone out there care to guess whether or not this same standard would be applied to Clinton? WHY THE RESULTS OF INTERNET POLLS ARE SO DIFFERENT Every day I get e-mail from someone wondering about the disparity between Internet polls and the polls we hear about on radio and television news. Internet polls show huge majorities in favor of impeachment. The polls that Dan Rather tells us about are just the opposite. Why the difference? Smarts. Intelligence. Brains. Remember --- people who respond to Internet polls are – come on now --- USING A COMPUTER! People who use computers to access the Internet are smarter than the average. They are achievers. They work! Bottom line --- the more intelligent you are and the higher your level of achievement the more likely it is that you are going to (a) be a Libertarian or Republican and (b) favor impeachment. MORE OF CLINTON'S LEGACY You may have missed this in yesterday's New York Times, but investigators now think that China was using its campaign contributions during the 1996 elections attempting to gain access to American technology. Well, it worked. The Chinese military has benefited mightily from those contributions, and American national security has been jeopardized. Another part of the Clinton legacy. ANOTHER CLINTON SCREW UP Word is that the real move toward impeachment started when the President said this weekend that he had not committed perjury. Immediately after that undecided so-called "moderate" Republicans announced that they would vote for impeachment. If the president doesn't even realize that he has done something wrong then he really does have a problem … and so does this country. The people who have branded Clinton a sociopath are looking smarter and smarter every day. MY CHILD WOULDN'T DO THAT! "But he loved her!" How many times have we heard family members come to the defense of someone accused of a violent crime …. "He would never do that. He isn't a violent person." And how many times are these people dead wrong. You get the idea that they were making the same excuses for these people when they were kids … and hence the problem. THIS SHOULD JUST ABOUT FINISH OFF THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT So --- who is violating the rights of women out there? Clinton, or the people trying to impeach him. According to longtime feminist leader Betty Friedan, Republican House members of using women in an "obsolete sexual way" in their bid to impeach Clinton. Friedan says that it is a disgrace "to have our will overthrown by a bunch of dirty old white men," intent on "trying to use sexual issues wrongly to impeach a president." So, to Friedan, perjury and obstruction of justice are sexual issues. WHERE IS THE LEFT-WING OUTRAGE AT THIS COMMENT? "If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of s together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death --- stone him to death -- stone him to death! Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the family. Kill the children." Can you believe this comment? It was made by none other than Hollywood heavyweight Alex Baldwin. Me made this utterance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien last Friday night. I ask you --- if this statement had been made in some other context by a conservative, just how loud do you think the media uproar would be? Ahhhh .. but it was made by a radical left-winger and directed at one of those evil, hated conservatives. In today's atmosphere ... with today's liberal media ... that's OK. BOORTZ SHOW SYNDICATION! So … the news is out. You may have read it in The Atlanta Constitution this morning. The Boortz Show is going into syndication on January 4th. Those of you from outside of Georgia who read Nealz Nuze and try to pick up the show from time to time on Real Audio can now put some pressure on your local talk stations to carry Boortz! As we start this syndication effort the ten to noon hours will be available to other stations. My current Atlanta area listeners should notice no real change in the show .. except that I will have to try to quit saying "WSB" so much during the ten to noon hours. That station out there in Fresno might not appreciate it. Most of our discussion of local Atlanta issues will be from 8:30 to 10:00. How many stations? Who knows? We'll start out with a small number, and watch the numbers increase. Then we'll watch some stations drop the show like a bad habit when the local leftist start screaming like stuck pigs. That's life in talk radio! Three steps forward, one or two steps back. There are a lot of reasons I'm looking forward to this. One is Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell. He thinks he's in line for a big job, maybe Vice President, with Al Gore. Wait until America gets a load of this clown. So .. for those of you outside of Atlanta, get your station to call Paul Douglas here at WSB for more information. His number is 404-962-2078. boortz.com

To: Kaliico who wrote (9507)	12/16/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 16 1998 Tripp fingers Kennedy in Filegate Testifies she saw him bring dossiers to Foster By Gabrielle Stevenson © 1998 WorldNetDaily.com As part of a $90 million class-action lawsuit against several parties, Linda Tripp has given sworn testimony that she saw identified as FBI files "traveling in by the hand of Bill Kennedy into Vince Foster's office prior to Vince Foster's death, not exiting that office with Mr. Kennedy when he left." Tripp said in a deposition taken by Judicial Watch that the files in question were identified by Betsy Pond, secretary to associate White House counsel William Kennedy and a former Rose Law Firm partner with Hillary Rodham Clinton. The files were seen by Tripp on Foster's desk and in his safe. Foster was deputy White House counsel and Tripp was his assistant. When she saw the files for the first time, she only saw one name, and only the last name, Dale. The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of staffers from the Reagan and Bush administrations. The parties being sued are Mrs. Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, as well as the Clinton White House and the FBI. On Dec. 8, Tripp was cleared to testify on Filegate matters only. Any knowledge she may have regarding Travelgate, which has several connections to Filegate, is not allowed for the deposition that is scheduled to continue on Friday. Billy Dale was the head of the Travel Office who was fired by the White House and investigated for financial irregularities. He was cleared of all charges. He also underwent an Internal Revenue Service audit. "Linda Tripp's testimony in the Filegate case is a turning point in this serious scandal," stated Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch. "Anyone who thought that this Clinton White House was 'free and clear' in Filegate will, in light of Tripp's testimony, have to reconsider his views." Klayman said he was pleased with the results from the first half of testimony. "It went extremely well," Klayman said. "But there is more information to get. "I don't know that it was Billy Dale's file," Tripp said in the deposition. "I don't know that with any degree of certainty. I can tell you that it was my assumption and I'm fairy confident it was an accurate assumption based on the timing and subsequent events." Tripp also said she saw the Kennedy files in Foster's safe at a later time. Tripp had access to Foster's safe, which was kept in Nussbaum's office. Nussbaum, former White House counsel, kept all sensitive materials in the safe, which was next door to Foster's office. Tripp also testified that she overheard Kennedy talking with Marsha Scott about materials that Mrs. Clinton wanted out of the database that contained the FBI files. "Ms. Tripp's testimony speaks for itself," said Klayman. "And it puts to rest the lie that Filegate was an innocent mistake." After the deposition is complete, Klayman said there will be discovery motions filed for consideration by Judge Royce Lamberth after the deposition is complete. All evidence and statements from the deposition are under oath, and will be used in the upcoming trial. worldnetdaily.com

To: Kaliico who wrote (9507)	12/17/1998 8:36:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Kaliico- Thank you for a reasoned response. However, I believe it contains errors in thought. <<..it was still officials acting on what they > thought were the best interest of the US and > Nicauragua and in accord with the president's > wishes... nonsense. it was in violation of a law the boland amendment) specifically passed by congress to prohibit the ensuing subversive activity, and represents a fine prima facie case for impeachment >> > US officials may have legitimately believed they > had to lie to protect national interests and > live of our allies. and i counter this with "aldrich ames legitimately believed he had to lie to protect national interests and the lives of our allies, and so does not deserve the life sentence he is currently serving for subverting the laws forbidding espionage." sounds rather foolish when rephrased, eh? But may I suggest that violating the law, and acting in the interests of the US or those to whom we were allied are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is particularly the case with some of the dumb laws Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has passed. While I have forgotten most of what I knew about the Boland Amendment- although I put it in the category of Congress trying to unwisely micromanage foreign policy- I would cite the Church Amendment as case in point. This amendment makes it illegal for the US gov to attempt to kill a foreign leader. In the wisdom of Congress, it is better to go to war with a rogue state like Iraq, with all the attendant civilian casualties, than it would be to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Talk about nonsense! >> Your comparison to Alrich Ames is absurd. Ames was not acting in what he considered to be the interests of the US- he was acting for the pecuniary interest of Aldrich Ames. His loyalties extended no further than his own material wealth. Nobody in the Reagan administration got rich out of Iran/Contra. << > Of course, I too would share a sense of outrage > if CIA operatives engaged in the murder of > innocents or non-combatants. To the extent it > happened, the facts should be brought to light- > one wonders why this administration has not done > so... this is a bad joke. cia-paid mercenaries were bayonetting pregnant women, hacking them and their fetuses to death, and hanging them on fence posts alongside dirt roads in the nicaraguan backcountry, and you're "wondering" why "this administration has not" brought these facts to light? >> I was referring to employees of the US gov, and I was reacting to your reference to an ex-agency employee having nightmares about murder in which he participated. You do bring to light one of the dilemmas of foreign policy: viz., frequently those with whom we are allied may not live up to our moral standards. I would repeat, if US gov employees were involved in activities you have cited, that should be investigated and brought to light. I am not sure Uncle Sam can be held responsible for the activities of every foreign asset with whom we forge a tactical alliance. It is a dilemma for every American involved in foreign policy decisions. I am not sure I see a good solution to it; I do not think you have pointed the way to such a solution. I repeat, the Oretegas and the Sandinistas were a gang of thugs guilty of mass murder. > In the so-called scandals you refer to during > the Reagan administration, nobody in the > administration got rich. please, read the public record before you make patently false claims like this: one source is "the great S & L rip-off" by pete brewton, pulitzer prize-winning(?) reporter for the houston post (chronicle? not sure). although the title may be wrong, mr. brewton's research is right on target. he presents hundreds of footnoted references to prove his assertion that the S & L rip-off enabled by reagan's signing a bill authorizing dramatic changes in the u.s. banking structure (upon signing, reagan is heard on the news broadcast of the ceremony remarking, "gentlemen, i think we've hit the jackpot") is the largest net transfer of public wealth to private individuals in world history. >> Hold the phone, bub. Would you kindly identify who in the Reagan administration got rich? Your little smear on RR suggests maybe he was the one. If that is the case, please provide your documentation: I'm sure it would be of interest beyond this thread. And if you cannot back up your smear, may I respectfully suggest you refrain from such innuendo. I think the record shows that people were able to use an idiotically designed banking system (designed during FDR's administration) coupled with the partial de-regulation of banking during the 1980's [long overdue] to enrich themselves by impoverishing others, legally in many cases. My point about members of the Reagan administration still stands, and you offered nothing of substance to refute it. So, while I consider your post reasoned, it contains numerous errors- some quite elementary- and I deem it utterly unpersuasive. Cordially, Larry P.S. A major flaw of the Reagan banking de-regulation was that it left the US gov. guaranteeing the savings of those who placed their money in yahoo banks. And of course, the transistion from a government controlled system- such as our banking was- to a free market system is frought with difficulty.