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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (32766)	2/8/1999 2:45:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

So, if a worker decided to retire or resign from a position and was talked back into staying, he shoud be branded a "liar" or just quit. I guess next you'll be calling Michael Jordan a liar for coming out of retirement or for Bush for relenting to Democratic tax hike in 1991. The liars are those who claim a system is running out of funds, raise taxes, and then continue to increase the system's expenditures irresponsibly. Or the liar who claimed to save Social Security and then spends 38% of the SS excess. Or the liar who claims to balance the budget by cutting discretionary programs by 50% in the first year of the next president's term. Or the liar who claims to make Medicare solvent by stealing money from SS. What a hypocrite. As long as you're longing for higher taxes and entitlements, perhaps you should ask for tax rates to be scaled based on local cost of living. That would probably put the 31% marginal tax bracket to start at 10,000 in Wisconsin. The 36% bracket at 50,000, and so on. Get off the pot and pay your own way. Until then you're just another liberal adolescent pontificating.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (32766)	2/8/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 67261

Daniel, only term limits will prevent the abuses of power and outright corruption we see occurring in the Congress. It's too bad that Democrats can't let loose of their King worship long enough to support term limits legislation. Here's an article describing the squirming I predicted so many months ago. It will be amusing to see how they vote guilty without voting for impeachment. :-) Michael _____________________________________________________________________ Sunday, 07-Feb-1999 3:41PM Story from UPI Copyright 1999 by United Press International (via ClariNet) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A prominent Democratic senator says he believes President Clinton's actions in the Monica Lewinsky scandal rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, but he says for the sake of the country perhaps Clinton should remain in office. The comments of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., came in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast today on ABC's ''This Week.'' Two weeks ago, Byrd had offered a motion to dismiss the case against Clinton. Clinton's Senate impeachment trial is scheduled to resume at 1 p.m. EST on Monday, although Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Pat Leahy, D- Vt., will be part of the U.S. delegation to the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein. Six hours of closing arguments by the prosecution and defense are scheduled Monday. Beginning Tuesday, senators will hold their final debate for about three days. Byrd said he believes the final deliberations should be public. Byrd said censure after the trial would allow senators to express their condemnation of Clinton's actions. Asked about language of a censure, Byrd said Clinton's actions had hurt the country and ''all of the institutions of government.'' He added, ''The question is does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I say 'yes.' No doubt about it, in my mind. But the issue is, should the president be removed? Should this president be removed? That's the issue.'' Byrd said the Constitution requires that if Clinton is convicted, he is automatically removed from office -- so the way to vote on the impeachment articles is to consider what's best for the country. ''I have no doubt that he has given false testimony under oath and that he has misled the American people. And that he has -- there are indications that he did, indeed, obstruct justice,'' Byrd said. ''But having said all of that, under the circumstances -- he has less than two years to serve, he has done a lot of good things, and the American people don't want him removed. And in the interest of our country, I may come to the conclusion that we should not remove him. For these reasons. '' Byrd said Clinton will be judged by history if he remains in office. ''He won't be getting off scot-free,'' Byrd said. ''People a hundred years from today will talk about this. I'm not going to be at all light in my excoriation of William Jefferson Clinton. ''What he did was deplorable. Inexcusable. A bad example. It undermined the system of justice when he gave false testimony under oath. He lied under oath,'' Byrd said. ''But, I can close that chapter. I can work with the president.'' Byrd said he thought history will judge the Senate as having done a good job handling the impeachment trial -- and that the vote will be wrenching for all senators. ''The most heart-wrenching of any vote that any senator will ever be called on to make is the vote to convict or to acquit,'' he said. ''It would be very difficult to stand and say 'not guilty.' Very difficult. Who's kidding whom here? I have to live with myself. I have to live with my conscience. And I have to live with the Constitution. And that Constitution is just like the Bible. You can't write it over.'' Asked whether he will be able to stand and say ''not guilty,'' Byrd replied: ''Next Friday or before, we will know.''

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (32766)	2/9/1999 6:57:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 67261

No, no Daniel, I'm sure the media spin would go something like this again. :-) Michael mrc.org ______________________________________________________________________ What Could The Media Do To Jane Doe? By L. Brent Bozell III February 4, 1999 Pesky Internet gossip Matt Drudge is badgering a national news outlet again. Last year, it was Newsweek sitting on a story about some obscure intern named Lewinsky. This year, it's NBC News spiking an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, identified by the Paula Jones legal team as "Jane Doe #5." Broaddrick has claimed and retracted and now reasserted she was raped by then-Attorney General Bill Clinton in 1978. After Drudge started scooping the juicy rumors (Tom Brokaw threatening to quit if they aired the interview?), others began looking for answers. On MSNBC, Don Imus asked Tim Russert about it. "If and when we lock up a story, we'll go with it. If we don't, we won't," answered Russert. That's an honorable theory. Too bad it's not NBC's policy. Remember Anita Hill? She, too, had an accusation to make. Hers involved verbal harassment by a judge, not rape by the would-be President. She didn't offer a shred of evidence. In fact, all the circumstantial evidence and knowing witnesses pointed against her. NBC didn't wait to "lock up" her story. They covered her - live. Fox News Channel then moved to report the NBC controversy, and Drudge quoted White House spokesman Joe Lockhart as threatening: "If you go with the story after NBC News decided not to, there won't be any argument about whether Fox News is right wing or not." (And get this for chutzpah: after Lockhart's threats were leaked, fellow White House flack James Kennedy complained to Fox that such threats were supposed to be off the record.) When Bill Sammon of the Washington Times asked Lockhart to comment on pressuring a network, Lockhart eventually responded: "If any of you think I'm in a position to pressure anyone, you give me more power than you think I have." Here we go again, another administration scandal met with stonewalling, threats, and fatuous claims of non-intervention from Clinton press bullies. Here's hoping NBC makes the right decision on this interview, and for the right reasons. Let's hope they're not postponing a completed report until after the impeachment trial is over. Let's hope they're still trying to get to the truth, no matter who it benefits. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath. I hate to be a pessimist, but based on the year we've just been through, can you imagine what would happen if this interview did air? Let's imagine how the story would play out. Which of the following events would we be subjected to next? 1. Would Hillary Clinton appear again with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show to claim, "These would be very serious charges if proven true, but they won't be proven true"? Would Hillary blame the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for the charges, and would we hear the dutiful press corps again repeat this silliness ad nauseam for another year? 2. Would we see another breathless hour-long special from Geraldo Rivera on CNBC alleging that Richard Mellon Scaife bankrolled the American Spectator to pay off this Clinton accuser? 3. Would The McLaughlin Group's Eleanor Clift again insist, "This rather reeks of exploitation. If these women, had, you know, serious concerns, why didn't they speak out in 1992? Why didn't they come forward earlier?" 4. Would NBC anchor Tom Brokaw defend NBC's delay in an interview on Tim Russert's CNBC show: "Why didn't we put it on earlier? It didn't seem, I think to most people, entirely relevant to what was going on at the time. These are the kinds of charges raised about the President before. They had been played out in the Gennifer Flowers episode. The American public made a decision about his personal conduct, and whether it had relevance in his personal life "? 5. Would Anita Hill appear on "Meet the Press" again to declare: "We have to look at the totality of the presidency and how has he been on women's issues generally. Is he our best bet, not withstanding some behavior that we might dislike"? 6. Would Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales find his lord and savior Bill Clinton to be the victim of yet another "high-tech crucifixion"? 7. Would Time contributor Nina Burleigh tell the New York Observer that "women ought to line up to endure a little assault for the cause of keeping abortion legal and keeping the theocracy off our backs"? 8. Would Dan Rather announce a new CBS poll showing 80 percent of Americans still favor Clinton, including repealing the 22nd Amendment so he can be President for Life? Okay, this is all too wildly improbable to even contemplate. But that's just the way the giants of objectivity reacted to the Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones stories. Nothing is beyond them. Nothing at all.