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 (36296)	3/1/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Just think how many trees would have been spared had the Washington Post followed this dictum during that High Tec Lynching a few years back. To maintain authority with the public, journalists would be wise to remember one of the old adages: When in doubt, leave it out. Being first and wrong is worse than useless. It damages both journalism and society.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

At least I took the trouble to answer objections and explain my reasoning. If you wanted to complain about my answering in several paragraphs, it would make more sense than mischaracterizing me as making "2 sentence statements of conservative dogma". But then, you were never very concerned with truth or fairness.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<On obstruction, one of Broaddrick's motivations in going public was allegedly to deny she was being obstructed in telling her story.>> True enough. That lended some credibility to her claim that she wasn't just out to "get clinton." I think it is also true that she didn't report earlier because of her stated fears that she would be trashed like the other women who had spoken up. Looks like you were ready, willing, able, and happy to oblige. This story represents one of the best attempts I've seen to discredit her story without calling it a lie.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 2:33:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Absolutely Dan, I agree. Impeachment should have been based on the Starr report solely. Not some back room where Tom Delay hosts a whole series of gossip and dirt that the sleaze-hedgehog Starr dug up but is not admissable in court. We should not be impeaching people on innuendo... I know the founding fathers wanted house impeachment to be a political process and that is what it was. Bill Bennett wins the loser award for his statement on MTP this weekend - in essence, "rapists are pro-choice" (I don't remember the exact quote). No matter how bad it gets for Clinton, the right wing manages to outdo it.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 67261

Daniel, I suspect the only reason people like you, Dashle and Lieberman still defend Clinton as this stage has to do with the avalanche of revelations that will follow his resignation, which will show how many prominent Democrats associated with Clinton were willing accomplice in, or silent enablers of criminal activities. If you see no problem whatsoever with having a President who most likely raped when he was state Attorney General, then I don't care to listen to any of what you have to say on this matter.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 7:41:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

<<As for the Broaddrick story, my personal view is in line with this article. If Starr wanted Clinton impeached on the Broaddrick charges, he should have said so in his referral. >> Well old log in your pus filled eye, her charge wasn't part of the perjury while he was president charge. Her story was in the evidence room and not one of the democratic Senators went to the room to look at the evidence. <<. There was no article of impeachment on general moral turpitude. >> That is a ground but you wouldn't understand that.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/1/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Looks like Danny boy's contract got renewed. I expect we'll see Dopy pop up next. JLA

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (36296)	3/2/1999 2:52:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

>Making those calls--editing--is at the heart of journalism. The importance of verification became all the more clear when viewers saw NBC's interview.< "but boy, when we're going after a Clarence Thomas or a Bob Packwood, by golly that's different! We'll cover the first sniffs in the wind. We'll cover the feminist comments on the sniffs in the wind. We'll cover the calls made by the feminists for all who have been "harassed" by Packwood, to please make yourself known and come forward, altar-call style, and have your justice. Take your time, or be speedy! We don't care, we'll cover it from beginning to end! We'll cover every Packwood diary entry in intimate detail, dissecting every line on at least page 3. And oh! Will we cover a Senate grilling of an Anita Hill! We'll stop the weather report, we'll stop the traffic report. We'll stop the music. We'll cover it for every hour, for every minute that anyone in Congress is speaking on these weighty matters. At least, we used to do it that way. Now, we're more judicious. After all, that's OUR MAN up there! You've just got to understand our plight. We had no idea he was like that. Really. We wish someone had warned us. But alas, it's just a little late in the game for woulda coulda shouldas, isn't it? So now, we're just a little more judicious in our (sniff) "Journalistic Standards". That's it. We'll really pound the table on our "heavy responsibilities". The "need to be cautious". To "check out all the facts" before "jumping in". We go slowww. We put him in there, and now we're in a pickle.