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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25382)	12/31/1998 3:42:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I sincerely believe that any politician, regardless of his or her party affiliation, who egregiously violates his or her public trust (not to mention oath of office, or the law) should be unceremoniously booted out of office. Two words, Bob. Iran-contra. What do you think of Iran-contra? Lots of funny stuff there, lots of lying, and the coverup never ended. Do you think anybody should have been booted for that one? What's your definition of "the public trust"? I'm sure Henry Hyde could help you explain that one all away, if necessary. And for the record, I don't think anybody should have been booted for Iran-contra. A political judgement was made by Congress there, and it was a reasonable judgement. But compared to the current tempest, that one seemed to have a bit more substance behind it. Perjury? There were convictions there. Obstruction of justice? It never ended. And it was all about government operations too, not BJs and some politically motivated civil suit.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (25382)	12/31/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: PAT JENNING	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Since he had to get JD approval for any investigations, I'm not sure that it could be called "fishing," but nevertheless, fishing only works if there are fish there to be caught. >> JD's judgement has been poor in her management of Starr. However, Starr should not have asked or accepted an expansion of his duties beyond the original investigation. As to your argument about the validity of "fishing", how would you like it if your local DA decided to investigate you and everything you've done in order to find something to nail you with? Maybe you've got no skeletons in your past, but wouldn't you find it somewhat unfair? The courts frown on police power being used to target individuals simply because the targeting involves a presumption that the target is a public menace. That may be ok in the case of known mobsters (but even then it is problematic), but it isn't ok in the case of ordinary citizens or elected officials who are targeted just because of their office or influence. I agree with you on the value of a republic. That is why I tend to vote against initiatives on the state ballot -- I figure that we invest power in our representatives so that they can analyze and decide issues, using the time and means that the rest of us don't have. However, I would argue that if the last few months shows any "short-sightedness," it is on the part of people who are willing to damage the presidency and the constitution to express their outrage over some rather petty violations by Clinton.