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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rose Rose who wrote (651)	12/22/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 2390

The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta Tuesday, December 22, 1998 AMERICA NEEDS A TRIAL! NOT A PLEA-BARGAIN The greatest fear the White House has right now is the possibility of an actual trial before the Senate. Clinton knows better than most what horrors await him at such a trial. For instance, There's Jane Doe No. 5. Will she appear? Would she be a witness? Jane Doe No. 5 is Juanita Broaddrick. Years ago she told her friends in Little Rock that she had been forcibly raped by Bill Clinton while working in his first campaign for Governor. Click here for more of this story. Broaddrick is just one of many reason's Clinton wants to avoid a trial. He knows that the level of decorum dignity in a Senate trial will be high. The American people will be more likely to set their personal prejudices aside and pay attention to testimony. Make no mistake ... a trial before the Senate will produce damming and irrefutable evidence of multiple felonies committed by Clinton. I believe that with every day of a Senate trial they will see the public support of Clinton slip a bit more. Soon, with the erosion in popular support, Senators will start making noises about conviction. Just a few good weeks of this and a few Senators will make a visit to the White House with strongly worded recommendations for Clinton's resignation. The preservation of whatever reputation Clinton has left absolutely depends on finding a way to avoid a trial in the Senate. The truth must remain in those boxes delivered by Ken Starr. HOW THE DEMOCRATS COULD SABOTAGE A SENATE TRIAL Obfuscation, delay, intimidation and demonization. The tried-and-true tactics of the White House for the past several years of Ken Starr's investigation. But how can the Democrats in the Senate use obfuscation and delay to further gum up the works? Today's Wall Street Journal gives some interesting examples: The Senate can't compel a witness to testify. If a witness decides to ignore a subpoena the Senate must vote to authorize civil litigation in federal court to compel that witness to testify. Just think how much time that would take. Almost any question put to a witness can be objected to by any member of the Senate. Each one of these objections would, if the ruling of the Chief Justice is opposed, have to be voted on by the entire Senate. It is possible that each Senator would then have 10 minutes or so to argue the point. In other words, the Democrats and the Clintonistas will have every opportunity to delay the trial, and then delay the trial some more. This would, as The Wall Street Journal says, "... would permit the president to ... stimulate public disgust with the process itself in the hope that constituent pressure would lead to an early abandonment of the proceedings." OVERTURNING AN ELECTION? Note, please, that only 24 percent of the people eligible to vote in this country voted for Clinton in the last election. Some mandate. CLINTON SECRET POLICE AT WORK? The Drudge Report tells us this morning that Julia Hughes Jones ran into a spot of trouble on her way to appear on CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews program. Jones was the Arkansas state auditor during the years of Clinton's governorship. She was evidently going to tell some as-yet untold stories about Clinton's days as governor. It seems that over the weekend, before her appearance on Hardball, someone broke into her home and corrupted some relevant files on her computer. Click Here to read the Drudge Story. HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE? Clinton, talking with a reporter at a White House Christmas party, said that his "biggest mistake" was in failing to pressure moderate Republicans to come out against impeachment before last November's elections. So … that was his biggest mistake, huh? Not having sex with an intern. Not lying in a deposition. Not lying to a grand jury. Not using his subordinates to spread his lies. Not obstructing Ken Starr's investigation. No lying to the American people he claims to love so much. No ….. his biggest mistake was not putting the right pressure on moderate Republicans. He still doesn't get it, does he? You do realize that he has yet to admit perjury, let along apologize for it. AMBASSADOR MOSELEY-BRAUN? You got it! The defeated Democrat from Illinois has reportedly been offered the post of Ambassador to New Zealand. Question: Just what has New Zealand done to make us this angry? Why not Iraq? PARTISAN …. PARTISAN Wow! I have to give the Clinton camp and the Democrats credit on this one. This partisan line is working. In these men-on-the street interviews you are starting to hear people use the "partisan" word who had never heard it a few weeks ago. They use it, but they couldn't define it. Partisan? The raw truth is that there was bipartisan support for the impeachment. The second article, dealing with obstruction of justice, would not have passed without Democratic votes. Clinton and Gore won't tell you that. ILL INFORMED AMERICANS Education by news bite. The vast majority of people in this country learned everything they know about our form of government, and how it operates, from news bites on evening newscasts. It shows. We should have people walking around with medals engraved with "I'm an uninformed idiot." These would be handed out to every man or woman who is heard to say that this whole impeachment situation is just about Clinton's private life. SLICK WILLIE TRIES TO SLITHER THROUGH ANOTHER ONE So now we hear that the Clintonistas are investigating ways to avoid an impeachment trial. They're thinking of challenging the constitutionality of the Senate trying an impeachment case brought by a previous Congress. So .. he'll continue to show remorse for the mistakes in his personal life; he'll continue to deny that he lied under oath or obstructed justice; and he'll continue to try to use the courts to hide from justice. So typically Clinton. I just hope I'm still doing talk radio years from now when those who blindly support and fawn over this tragic excuse for a president come to realize just how evil he really is, and how badly they were fooled by him. boortz.com

To: Rose Rose who wrote (651)	12/22/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Shoot1st	Respond to of 2390

Guest what...the country will survive and grow stronger for it. Shoot Shoot

To: Rose Rose who wrote (651)	12/22/1998 9:15:00 PM
From: Sharon J. Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Well Rose after watching some of these "men" on this thread it is no longer a mystery to me why the lesbian population is increasing. I guess that includes Hillary but one of the inbreds here will no doubt fill us in with one of his "genuine" news clippings. I've been out of the south too long I.ve forgotten that people like this really do exist. Pity

To: Rose Rose who wrote (651)	12/22/1998 9:40:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2390

<"...There are felonies and there are felonies, and while self-righteous people can hold up their chins and say "The law is the law", the fact remains that some felonies hurt people and others don't."> I see. So, which government agency is in charge of deciding which felonies require action because they "hurt people", and which felonies can be ignored because they "don't" (hurt people) ? Is that something that should be decided by taking a poll, perhaps? Wouldn't you think that if the authors of the laws relating to the felonies in question thought there should be some "exceptions" or "qualifiers" to the law, they would have included them in the law ? "...Common sense tells me that having Clinton removed from office would be more harmful to our country then letting him finish out his term, despite the widely-held belief (one that I don't share) that he is guilty of committing one or more felonies." What you term as "common sense", I view as seriously flawed logic. But then, if you truly believe Slick committed NO crime, then I'm afraid logic means absolutely nothing to you. Sad.