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: jbe who wrote (8351)	10/9/1998 9:36:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) of 67261

Thanks for the URL - I'll take a look at the proposal this morning. Based on your summary, I agree that it looks reasonable. I haven't looked at the "winning" proposal yet either, but from what I was able to gather from the talking heads last night (when compared to your summary), the only difference would be that the House doesn't have to wait until they get a referral from Starr to look at any given "gate". That would exclude Chinagate, but they could always look at that separately, especially since it is already under investigation by the House. It seems to me that the Republicans passed up a chance to have an almost unanimous vote of no confidence in Clinton, in order to look stronger than the Democrats. <<What makes the House think that the Judiciary Committee can find something on these gates that Starr could not??>> If you go back to when Starr was first appointed, you will see that the Democrats actually liked him and the Republicans did not. He was seen as not motivated to find wrongdoing on the part of the President because Starr had Supreme Court aspirations. Some people blamed Starr's findings about Vince Foster on those aspirations. It may be that the House Republicans feel that Starr has purposely not looked at much of the information available, and isn't really trying to "get" Clinton. After all, so much "proof" has been put forward by people other than Starr, that it seems suspicious that Starr wasn't able to come up with anything. I don't agree with this, but I have heard this put forward by House Republicans on C-Span. <<did you actually hunt for any websites dedicated to "Saving Our President"? >> Not yet - that's on my to-do list for the weekend. Thanks again for the information.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next