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: Machaon who wrote (10455)	1/24/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: Frank Griffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Mr. Barry, since there is so much that doesn't add up in your profile I wonder do you really work for the Clinton administration or some segment of the government? Eastern Airlines has been out of business even before Silicon Investor even existed. I truly wonder how much truth there is in any of your representations. Of course, for some the means justify the ends. Are you a great Gore fan? You stated you are in to environmentalism in a big way. Why don't you 'fess up and represent yourself for who you really are and who you really represent. Thanks, Frank

To: Machaon who wrote (10455)	1/24/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Left out the Waco, TX baby massacre too.

To: Machaon who wrote (10455)	1/24/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<"The Republican Party will find out the hard way when we have the "Trial of the Millennium" ..... The American People vs Republican Party at the polls in 2000"!"> Robert, I've noticed you using this this line in a few of your posts. I have a very different view. I tend to believe the results of a strict party line vote to acquit will end up HAMMERING the Dems in 2000. Think about it... If Slick remains in office because the Dems block-vote to acquit, they'll (the Dems) be extremely nervous for two years, for fear that something else will turn up about Slick or Mz Slick and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the world that the Slicks are simply NOT presidential-class citizens. Do you REALLY believe Slick can be scandal free for two whole years without stepping on his crank ? I don't think so...! Then, when he does screw up, or when the rest of his (or Mz. Slick's) crimes finally comes home to roost... like the FBI Files, Travel Office fiasco, or even campaign finance shenanagans..., the Reps will have all those great video clips of all the Dems saying what great folks the Slicks are, and that they should remain in office, blah, blah, blah... Oowwee! What a rout that'll be! Here's a good editorial about that subject from Florida. Lotta votes in Florida, huh? ----------------------------------------------- Florida Times-Union Sunday, January 24, 1999 OPINION IMPEACHMENT: A dozen Democrats If Democrat senators vote en bloc to retain President Clinton in office, it will stain the party forever. It is assumed by pundits that all 55 Republicans will vote to convict, although that conclusion seems a little premature at this point. If that should happen, however, the votes of 12 Democrats would be needed for conviction. Because of the powerful presentation by the House prosecutors, the senators can have little doubt that Clinton lied and obstructed justice. Step by step, the prosecutors showed how the White House was galvanized into action upon finding that Monica Lewinsky was to be called as a witness in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Phone calls from the Oval Office to Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie and from Currie to Lewinsky cannot be explained in any context favorable to the president. Nor could his Sunday meeting with Currie during which he clearly coached her to lie on the witness stand. What senators will have to decide is what to do about the president's felonious activities. Clinton Loyalist Sen. Tom Harkin, DIowa, has said, ''Just because a president commits a crime does not mean, ipso facto, that he should be removed from office.'' That might be suitable for Richard Nixon's epitaph. Public opinion polls are Clinton's life raft, and the air is leaking. The polls, which were in Clinton's favor at a time when few people were following the case and when the Dow was soaring to record heights, began moving against Clinton as the details were revealed - until he giddily proposed giving away $288 billion a year and got a quick opinion fix. Because of his reliance on polls, if the balance should tip to a majority in favor of removal, Democratic defenders would have nothing left to cling to. Already, a majority in one poll say Clinton deserves to be removed. The sad part - for the nation, not the president - is that all of this could have been avoided. Throughout his career, Clinton has been able to use his husky voice to talk his way out of trouble. He was so convinced it would work in this case that he missed an opportunity. Had he acknowledged the Lewinsky affair a year ago, it is doubtful that he would have been impeached and therefore would not be on trial. The worst would have been three days of headlines and - maybe - some nightly news notice on TV. Still, the consummate risk-taker may yet escape the ignominy of being the only president removed from office. The Senate could show mercy. Since a finding of guilt would require removal from office, it may choose not to convict because enough senators believe removal from office is too severe. But if it falls on party lines, the narrow escape will be seen as a partisan rescue of a guilty president. Then it becomes Clinton's legacy and the Democratic Party's albatross. ------------------------------------------------------ This site, and all its content, © The Florida Times-Union 1999 jacksonville.com

To: Machaon who wrote (10455)	1/24/1999 8:49:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< Robert: It was little, threatened and self-interested minds like yours that made it possible for the Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China to engage in the wholesale slaughter of ... >> Hey, you left out the Cambodian slaughters under Pol Pot, Germany's slaughters under Hitler, the China/Indochina slaughters by Japan. After all, if you are going to blame me for mass murders, please be thorough. What a bunch of crap. First, you neatly failed to quote my entire statement, which was that pinheads like you made it possible for the gov'ts in question to murder intellectuals. That was based on your accusation that halfscot, apparently because he disagreed with you and felt that our justice system should not be poll-driven, was contemptuous of the limited intelligence of the people. It is specifically that sort of "the intellectuals all hate you" thinking that was the justification for the Soviet attacks on the "intelligentsia" and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. But apparently you didn't have a response to that, so you just quoted half of my statement and responded to that. And why am I being charged with these heinous atrocities? It's because I think that a man is innocent until proven guilty. President Clinton is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Again, crap. As I already stated, my post wasn't even about "these atrocities," that was just something you added to suit your argument. And I certainly didn't make the criticism I did (as outlined above) because you believe Clinton is innocent until proven guilty. That's ridiculous. Of course he's innocent until proven guilty! That's what this Senate trial is all about. You're damn right that I fail to grasp that you can impeach a democratically elected President just because he has been "charged" with a felony. And you're proud of it, too. Okay, listen carefully. A sitting president cannot be charged in a criminal court. Instead he goes through the impeachment process, the first part of which is the House impeachment vote. This vote is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a conviction. It is more in the manner of an indictment. And for that reason, it is not necessary to prove anything, other than that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a trial. So, impeachment can only happen as a result of someone simply being "charged." It is then up to the Senate to "try" him, and if they choose, to "convict" him. Bob, your superior intellect overwhelms me... Obviously. You, OTOH, are willing to throw justice out the window and find someone guilty without due process. This isn't just crap, it's erroneous and disingenuous crap. I have been fighting all along for justice against those who would have found Clinton not guilty without due process. All I've wanted all along is due process. I've said before that I really don't care how this Senate trial turns out. The important thing was that it be allowed to happen. If Clinton is found not guilty, that's okay by me. I personally don't believe that that's the verdict that the evidence seems to warrant, but it's not my decision. You keep shouting about "innocent until proven guilty," I'll be curious to see if you, along with most (if not all) of the Senate Democrats will be so agreeable if the evidence of his guilt mounts to the point that it can no longer be ignored. Then will he be "innocent despite proven guilty?" -BLT