Roger's 1998 Short Picks 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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: majormember who wrote (13685)	9/12/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: BDR	Read Replies (1) of 18691

<<Where are the indictments over WhiteWater or lies over any other matter besides sex??.....there are NONE.>> I get very irritated with the Clinton apologists insistence that all this money was spent and the result is just this report with no indictment of the Clintons to show for it. First of all I am not sure we should expect Starr to indict the President. I am not an expert on the law relating to the Special Prosecutor but my understanding is that, with regard to the President, the Special Prosecutor's charge is to investigate the activity in question and then report to Congress. It is Congress's job then to weigh the evidence, interrogate witnesses and decide whether impeachment is appropriate. This is what we now see happening. I believe the Special Prosecutor can indict but I gather the legal precedent for this is lacking. Legal Eagles help me out. So where are the indictments? Where are the convictions? I believe this link still will show you some. etherzone.com Now granted only a minority of those listed were convicted as a result of activity related to Whitewater. All that proves to me is that F.O.B.'s (felons of Bill) are perfectly capable of landing in jail without help from Starr.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next