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: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 11:01:00 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 13994

.. Clinton may be a sleeze but I don't believe you condone an equal level of sleeve from the right. Lesson #1 When you can't defend your side, attack the other side. The real issue is if the voting public has the final word and right to decide the Presidency. Lesson #2 Rule by poll.( What if Clinton had broke into watergate. Would the public's vote still rule? Yet every vote has been an extreme of partisan politics Lesson #3 Call every vote partisan,(but ONLY on the gOP, the Dems are not guilty of that) They are self righteously trampling on the right of all American's to decide through the tested 250 year history of elective process, Lesson #4 Ignore all that Clinton has been involved in and trash anyone in his way. If I or you were a Congressman or Senator, the one sided nature of this event should be the highest cause of concern and sound a dire warning. I agree one hundred percent. You Dems need to open your eyes and quit voting so partisan on this.....what has Clinton promised you to be sticking to him like this? ""Now I want you to listen to me""........................ d

To: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

You are ignorantly skipping over the fact that impeachment is just as much a constitutional process as an election. They are self righteously trampling on the right of all American's to decide through the tested 250 year history of elective process, the well structured method of 4 year election cycles.

To: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 11:58:00 AM
From: DD™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

** WITNESS: HOUSE INVESTIGATORS 'AFRAID OF PHYSICAL RETALIATION ** 01/31/99 02:18 UTC -- Investigators in the Senate impeachment trial are in fear that there will be direct retaliation against them, according to a witness that was questioned last week in Washington. Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris said on FOX NEWS CHANNEL's DRUDGE that during questioning, investigators told him that they are "physically afraid of retaliation" for their role in the impeachment trial. Joined in progress... 1/30/99 9:11 PM ET MORRIS: When I was called by the House Judiciary Committee just last weekend to testify or to meet with them I met with 3 investigators of the committee. They asked me not to use their names and I won't but they were each 50 years of age or over, they weren't kids. They had decades of experience working for the IRS, the FBI, and all kinds of other investigative organizations; they told me that they were physically afraid of retaliation. They asked me if I would testify_ DRUDGE: The ones questioning you were afraid?! MORRIS: Exactly, they asked me if I would testify and I said yea. And they said aren't you afraid of retaliation? And I said what are they going to expose, my sex life? You know we have done all that. I've taken the trouble to not sin since then. And they said no, no. I mean don't you know the list of the 25 people who have died in mysterious circumstances in connection with this investigation? And I said are you guys out of your minds? And they said no, no. And one of them said I guarantee you that each of us will have an IRS audit when this is over, he said I'm saving my receipts I know that I am going to have an audit. And I said, how does that work? And he said well the head of the IRS and Hillary are very good friends. DRUDGE: Let me get this straight, those even questioning people at this point are afraid. MORRIS: Yes. And we are not talking here about some right wing nuts, or some people who are really paranoid. We are talking about guys who have spent 20 or 30 years as top level investigators for the IRS and the FBI who have retired and are now on leave and brought back by the Judiciary Committee and they specifically asked me not to mention their names on the air. DRUDGE: Well we won't. ---- 1/30/99 9:14 PM ET END OF TRANSCRIPT drudgereport.com DD

To: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: DD™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

"We are quickly slipping into an intentional morass of quasi-legal distortions to undo the publics voted choice. " Using that flawed logic, a president could never then be removed from office because in doing so, you would be "undoing the publics voted choice. " Thaink about it!! DD

To: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

j.g., I freely admit that the post in question was simply a bit of rabble-rousing. I've spent entirely too much time here trying to argue the facts of this situation in a logical manner, and just took that opportunity to do a little schtick with the democrats as the target and blow off some steam. If that simply "amplifies the noise," then so be it. I personally feel that there's very little left but noise. As for the rest of your post, I would tend to agree with most of your perceptions of the situation, with one distinction. They've taken the position that their moral stance is more important than respecting the elective process or the will of the people. As I've said before, this is not a moral issue, it's a legal one. The only reason that Bill's sexual assignations with Monica are pertinent is that in response to a Supreme Court sanctioned, legally filed civil lawsuit, Bill Clinton, when legitimately (if indirectly) questioned about them, denied them. Much has been made about the "pornographic" Starr report (pay attention Michelle). The fact of the matter is that as soon as Clinton denied the relationship, it became incumbent upon Starr to prove the relationship. That he demonstrated it in such detail, while it may be distasteful, is what any legitimate prosecutor should do. It's amazing to me that Bill Clinton can say "I did nothing," and Ken Starr can say "This is exactly what you did do," and this makes Starr the bad guy. Ah, but denial knows no bounds. As I've also pointed out before, it's most often the Clinton partisans who bring up morality. I still maintain that this is because they can argue moral relativism, but not legal relativism. As long as they can paint this as a moral issue they can claim victory simply by refusing to play. So, if your statement were to read instead that "They've taken the position that their legal stance is more important than respecting the elective process or the will of the people," I would agree wholeheartedly. And they would be correct. And I personally find the notion that the people's will is more important than the law to be the highest cause for concern. -BLT

To: j g cordes who wrote (10846)	1/31/1999 11:21:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Look, j. g., the process of impeachment was put into the constitution for a reason! Of course it will undo an election. That was what it was for!! G. W.