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: Catfish who wrote (9737)	12/23/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

In the front pages of my telephone book, it tells me that it is against the law to record someone else's telephone conversations without their permission. I understand that this is the same in the Maryland phone books. When police or FBI make secret recordings, they are required to get court orders, or some sort of warrant, before they can intercept messages. Such evidence, if not collected legally, is regularly thrown out in courts and results in the dismissal of cases. I just keep wondering how come, if professional criminals are protected from evidence collected this way, and how come, if I am threatened in my phone book with actions if I record people whom I talk to, this whole case against Clinton can be built on illegally made tape recordings. It's a pretty low thing to trick someone else into intimate revelations, and record what they say, without telling them about it. And it's even lower to use that information for partisan political purposes under the cloak of righteous indignation. That's the problem. If people really want to discredit Clinton, it would be best to quit using tactics that most people find more repugnant than what Clinton has done. Nixon had the opposite problem. Most people agreed with his policies and outlook, but, again, his methods were repugnant. Illegal, secret, dirty tricks. Incidentally, has anyone noticed the power of private enterprise in this? Flynt only offered a million dollars, which as far as I know has not been paid to anyone, and brought down Livingston, whereas Starr has used $40 million of public money and Clinton is still there. The attack on Clinton has been conducted in a way that discredits the attackers more than Clinton; Nixon's defense discredited him more than it did the people who attacked him. In America, with our free press and free speech, and our open society, you have to fight fair. If you don't, people find out about it.