Did Slick Boink Monica? Message Board

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 : Did Slick Boink Monica?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ksuave who wrote (16726)	7/3/1998 7:55:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	of 20981

Lead editorial from today's NYT's: Mr. Starr Should Not Tarry Kenneth Starr has every right to appeal the dismissal this week of the tax evasion charges he brought against Webster Hubbell, the former Associate Attorney General. The decision by Federal District Judge James Robertson seems questionable in several respects. But Mr. Starr should heed the larger message of this and other adverse rulings of recent weeks. That message is that the investigations of President Clinton must soon be brought to a conclusion. Although we are sympathetic to Mr. Starr's complaint that the White House has tried to impede his investigation, the time has come to lay out his evidence and conclusions. Judge Robertson's central findings that Mr. Starr exceeded his authority under the independent counsel statute and reneged on his immunity deal with Mr. Hubbell are closer questions legally than his harshly worded opinion might suggest. Mr. Starr's use of financial documents obtained from Mr. Hubbell under a limited grant of immunity to build the tax case against him is troubling. But whether higher courts will agree that it was a violation of Mr. Hubbell's Fifth Amendment rights is uncertain. Supreme Court decisions on the rule against self-incrimination have limited its reach. Judge Robertson mistakenly suggests that the prosecution of Mr. Hubbell strays too far from Mr. Starr's legal mandate to investigate the Whitewater affair. Since Mr. Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Rodham Clinton, knows a great deal about the Whitewater matter, it does not seem unreasonable for Mr. Starr to pursue the suspicion that he received hush money from Clinton friends. But in seeking further judicial review of these issues, Mr. Starr ought not to lose sight of the broader picture. The various legal matters involving Mr. Clinton need to be resolved. The impatience of various Federal courts with Mr. Starr's tactics has added to national unease about the open-ended nature of his inquiry. The office of independent counsel was established not only to assure the unfettered investigation of charges against the highest government officials. It was also created to insure that a prosecutorial judgment be rendered in a timely manner. In the case of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Starr, that time is rapidly approaching. nytimes.com Corrupt Clinton and his corrupt cronies should not be rewarded for their delaying tactics. Walsh went on for more than 7 years w/o media complaint yet this most corrupt administration had behaved worse than the mob in its hostility to the US public and the legal system.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next