Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Cliff's Journal: Democrats -- Remove the Kid Gloves, NOW! 25

Journal by Cliff
The GOP impeached Clinton over "improper sexual conduct", and hounded him over Whitewater with $50 million dollars spent, and a handful of convictions. Might someone have more exact number of convictions that resulted from Whitewater, since the cited article was from 1998? I found this page, but it seems awfully one sided...)

Now we have this gem, picked up by Slashdot , as originally reported by the Boston Globe. I wonder how long it will take the rest of the media to follow suit, if they decide to follow suit at all.

Meanwhile, the media is silent on the possibility of potential Vice Presidential wrong-doings. Do I really have to mention Enron, one of the largest bankruptcies in American history, in to all of this? Probably not, but I'll do it, anyways.

So where is the Democratic outrage in all of this? Where is the media? Why haven't the GOP been catching as much hell as Clinton because of the corruption in our government that appears to extend all of the way to the top?

I don't know, but it's an election year. If it doesn't show up soon, it never will.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats -- Remove the Kid Gloves, NOW! More

Democrats -- Remove the Kid Gloves, NOW!

Comments Filter:

  • Silent (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    Meanwhile, the media is silent on the possibility of potential Vice Presidential wrong-doings. Do I really have to mention Enron, one of the largest bankruptcies in American history, in to all of this? Probably not, but I'll do it, anyways.

    That's because currently there is nothing to report. The media has covered this story as deeply as they can. Every major news outlet has reported on it several times over the past couple of years. But there is currently nothing to report.

    That MoveOn.org link says no
    • That's because currently there is nothing to report. The media has covered this story as deeply as they can.

      Because there was so much to report about Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Starr's findings to justify the hourly updates.

      My theory: White collar crime is boring to many viewers. People "get" sex. The intricacies of corporate law? Not so much.
      • Because there was so much to report about Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Starr's findings to justify the hourly updates.

        At the time they were being reported, there was something to report: Lewinsky and Tripp and Clinton had all testified in legal proceedings, giving the government strong evidence that Clinton had lied under oath. Within weeks of this, Reno authorized Starr to add it to his investigation, Drudge noted it on his site, and then the major news media picked it up.

        Nothing like that has happened here.
        • Screw your intern and then lie about it: Impeachment proceedings, endless investigations

          Screw your country and then lie about it: Pat on the back, "Bring 'em on!"

          • Both of the things were what the Democrats did, if you mean the Impeachment and the Enron thing.

            In both cases it was the Republicans that called for, and got, prosecution.

            In the latter, there is already a conviction plus at least two bankrupt corporations.

            In the former, there is a scott-free criminal.

            So, how is it that the Republicans, in these cases, were "bad" and the Democrats were "good"?
    • Opperative word currently. If only the GAO hadn't been forced into calling off its supeona of Cheney's secret energy policy meetings (guess who was present?) - thien no doubt the press would be currently pouring over ALL SORTS of juicy morsels. So now we can't get any information unless there is a "treasonous" leak, as it's all a matter of "National Security" - I wonder why?

      Personally, I won't be satisfied that there is "nothing to report" until we've budgeted $50 million for an independent prosecuter to
      • Opperative (sic) word currently.

        Yes, but that doesn't change a thing. The point is that the only reason the Lewinsky matter was investigated by the government is that evidence was provided that the President had broken the law (specifically, that he had lied under oath), and the only reason it was widely reported is that the government was investigating it. The Cheney matter has received far more attention from the media than the Lewinsky matter ever would have, if the evidence of the President's perjur
        • The Cheney matter has received far more attention from the media than the Lewinsky matter ever would have, if the evidence of the President's perjury had not surfaced.

          Hmmmm...sex scandal in the White House? Whether perjury was involved or not, I'd say this will always get more coverage by the media than some boring accounting-related scandal.

          IIRC, the Lewinsky affair was being reported by Drudge, FNC, et. al. before perjury became an issue...

          Whatever, this has been done to death...why don't you stop by
          • IIRC, the Lewinsky affair was being reported by Drudge, FNC, et. al. before perjury became an issue...

            You do not remember correctly. She first appeared in Drudge, and this was after Tripp came to Starr with the tapes where Lewinsky admitted to having sex with Clinton, and after both Clinton and Lewinsky had testified in sworn affadavits (in the Jones case) that they had not had sex.

            Whatever, this has been done to death...why don't you stop by my journal: I have a wealth of interesting "debate" topics w

  • Ahem (Score:1)

    by GMontag ( 42283 )
    The GOP impeached Clinton over "improper sexual conduct"

    They did? Really? When?

    Here are the charges [nara.gov] as answered by President William Jefferson Clinton and his counsel:

    1. ARTICLE I

    THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY OR OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

    2. ARTICLE II

    President Clinton denies that he obstructed justice in either the Jones case or the Lewinsky grand jury investigation.

    Humm, no mention of sex there, but he did not challenge everything either. Let's take a look at the actual Articles of Impeachment [house.gov]

    • If there had been no investigation into the Lewinsky issue, which Starr tried to tie to the Paula Jones case, then there would have been no purjury, and no impeachment. Lewinsky had nothing to do with Jones.
      • Oh wait, I forgot If you have sex with the help you should be immune from impeachment for perjury. [slashdot.org]

        Sorry, if Bill Gates were screwing a programmer on the sidde that would be a perfect defense for him too I guess. He is so stupid!

        My apologies, I just don't have the proper grasp of BSing the shit out of a judge.
      • Sorry, I misunderstood again. I really need to pay attention.

        First it was that Clinton was Impeached over sex, but that was not true, so now it is -- it would have been about sex if they had found something about sex, so we can still say it was about sex, because it would have been if . . . --

        Sorry, you guys really confuse me. Maybe I need one of those aluminum foil hats?
      • clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act which made a person's sexual history pertinent to any charge of sexual harassment.
        So, if he had not sexually harassed Paula Jones and had not had an affair and then lied about it and had not signed the law, he would have had nothing to worry about.
        But he made a person's sexual history pertinent. He did have an affair. He did lie under oath. He did suborn perjury and he did obstruct justice.
        There's no telling what Jim McDougal might have said if he had gotten
    • Wow...GM, you whine about people "Trolling" your journal - but then you go Buck-Crazy in somebody else's journal as soon as the opportunity presents itself? Crazy.

      The irony here is that I was going to point out that Clinton was impeached for lying, not for "improper sexual conduct" - but you of all people beat me to it! Crazy.

      And - by the way - Cheney's impeachment hearings are coming soon [belleville.com]. You better hope to God, Allah, or whatever that the Democrats don't win a majority in either house this November -
      • He has no clue what he's talking about [slashdot.org], he thinks a fine from a state bar association is a criminal conviction, and that retiring and suspension = disbarment.

        There's a fuckload to criticize Clinton about, you don't need to spin things out of proportion.
        • He sure is a funny guy though! Have you noticed how he keeps refering to Monica Lewinsky as "the Help"? What a sense of humour! Doubleplus funny!

          If the Hair Club for Men ever needs a comic for their annual convention, he's their man!

          Look out PJ O'Rourke!!!
  • They need to be jailed, as an example. The president should be impeached, providing he is reelected, and we need to come up with a new method of districting to prevent all this gerrymandering BS. Just to start with.

    That's just so damned wrong. You'd think they would have learned their lessons from Nixon, but oh no, apparently not.

    Oh and the Democrats aren't much better, with all those special interests knee deep into their agenda.

    Ugh.

    Oh and the arguments and denials are laughable.

    Of course none of t
  • Just noticed that one, sorry.

    Are you talking about the Enron that went about it's business until the Bush Administration prosecuted Enron officers AND ran Arthur Anderson, one of the largest CPA firms in the world, out of business?

    The Enron that had former Clinton officials (btw, they are Democrats), calling the current Bush officials (btw, they are Republicans) and asking them to go easy on Enron?

    I am so confused now. How is this a bad thing that the Republicans (I can list other things, but Democrats
    • If the Enron collapse hadn't been so public, do you really think the Bush Administration would have gone after it? That's called damage control.

      To be honest, the Democrats aren't any better, really. I just feel they are the lesser of two evils, and I have always felt that way [slashdot.org]. However everytime I advocate the elevation of another political party, people call me a dreamer. They say we are stuck with what we have and we should be grateful that we "are not France".

      Honestly, if things continue to go the w
      • Umm, you were indicating in your JE that the Republicans were at fault for Enron.

        Now you are saying they only prosicuted Enron as a coverup?

        And the Democrats were the good guys because the thing did not implode on their watch, even though their former Secretary of the Treasury was calling Republican officials to keep Enron from imploding?

        The Republican officials told the Dems to go pound sand and . . .

        No, I still don't get it.
        • No. Our government is at fault for Enron. Last I checked this was both the Democrats and the Republicans. However Enron fell apart during the GOPs watch, and the President had a huge supporter in Ken Lay. There is, at least in my eyes, the appearance of impropriety, there and I'm wondering why it isn't being investigated as thoroughly as Whitewater, and the Jones/Lewinsky cases were.

          Also, there is a difference between "lesser of two evils", and "good guy". Neither are "good", I'm getting quite sick of th
          • Last I checked this was both the Democrats and the Republicans.

            Sure can't tell that from your title and narrative.

            BTW, the final collapse was under Republican watch, yes. That would be an indictment under a Soviet system, but they were prosicuted by Republicans after they skated by Democrats after the Democrats continued to try to assist them.

            Sorry, I normally like reading your journal but this entry goes way over the jingoistic for my taste.
    • The Enron that Cheney met with only months before their collapse! [thenation.com]

      You know what I hate? Reactionaries like you ALWAYS have to be right. You can't be wrong! Ever.

      If the Left wasn't so willing to compromise on just about every issue, nothing would ever get done in this country!

      Anyway...in all seriousness, back in 1992 - a few weeks after "Bubba" got elected - I was listening to Rush. People were calling up screaming for impeachment, and he hadn't even taken the Oath yet ! I wish I could say I was exagger

Slashdot Top Deals

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal

Close