SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (9780)3/5/1998 11:06:00 AM
From: Triluminary  Read Replies (1) of 20981
 
Starr is using his unconstitutional powers

Which ones? What is he doing that is unconstitutional?

to intimidate, threaten and coerce testimony from witnesses that he would not get if he acted within the law.

Your source? Susan McDougal? Monica Lewinsky? Certainly they have no reason to push these baseless allegations.

He is doing this as a search and destroy operation to get Clinton at all costs.

Hyperbole. Starr is investigating the President.

While at the same time getting a million bucks a year from the law firm that defends the big tobacco companies.

Well I don't particularly care for Starr. I think he has made some poor choices and decisions, but I am tired of hearing people attack Starr. I don't agree with shooting the messenger.

Now who has become the biggest enemy of all time to big tobacco companies? Clinton!! He has cost them billions. The money itself Starr is receiving raises conflict of interest concerns. It all stinks far too much.

Clinton just happens to be President while some major court decisions are being made about smoking. That doesn't make him an enemy of "big tobacco".

I don't like Clinton but I won't let that taint my concerns for what is happening.

Good, we agree on something.

If Clinton lied to cover an affair with Monica it should not matter. If they were both willing participants then who's business is it?

I EXPECT Clinton to abide by the law. If they were both willing so what? That didn't make Clinton lie under oath. If Clinton breaks the laws then it's every US citizens business. If he abuses his powers to conceal breaking the law even more so is it everyone's business.

Let God judge the moral issue. No one on this planet is qualified to.

Pandora's box. Suffice it to say that morals are not being questioned here. Simply whether Clinton broke the law. Period. Moral's are not the issue as much as the main stream press would like it to be.

The idea of rotten corrupt people prosecuting other rotten corrupt people and only to benefit themselves (self serving) makes me ill.

Agreed. But I certainly question what Starr gains from this. Starr's character has been assassinated. He faces possible investigation. His past has been thrust under the microscope. Yes, Starr certainly has a lot to gain.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News