Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK 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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (2854)	9/15/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) of 67261

You are misrepresenting what legal commentators have said. What they have agreed is that SOME sexual detail was necessary, but nowhere near as much as Starr put in. All Starr needed to show was Monica testimony that the touched her bests and "lower regions". That's it. Perhaps said so each time she said it happened. That is it. Michelle's illustration is right on. There was absolutely NO need for that. No excuse whatsoever. The fact is Starr is a sanctimonius fundamentalist preacher of a prosecutor. And that is how his report reads. He is clearly going for character assassiation at every turn. There is no restraint shown whatsoever. Starr is as vindicative and and motivated by about as red hot a desire to "Get" Clinton as can be imagined. It's shot all through his report. Very much like Leon Jaworski, the Independent Counsel who reported to Congress in the Whitewater investigation. And very much unlike Judge Walsh, who also acted with some restraint (though less, I'd say), in the Iran Contra investigation. (Which I was opposed to about 1/3 of the way into it.) Doug

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next