John,
Concerning Starr, it is indeed likely that he is considering indicting Clinton while still in office.
However, why in hell would he "leak" the information to the New York Times, his worst critic, on the eve of witness testimony, rather than just make a press release ?
After all the "leaking" this guy has been accused of, what exactly does he have to gain by "leaking" rather than just telling it staight in a press release.
IMHO, the information from the NYT, which is a perfectly legitimate subject to talk about in the first place, has been gathered over a period of time, and is now delivered packaged as a leak by the NYT in order to create a controversy.
I have no doubt whatsoever at this point that there is collusion between the NYT and the White House, and that Blumenthal and "journalists" from the NYT are involved.
We shall know soon enough if Starr is the corrupt manipulator and leaker, or if Blumenthal gets the title. My money is on Ken Starr to be the innocent one. Daniel thinks I'm nuts, but we'll see.
In any case, thank you for indicating that you are keeping an open mind on the subject.
Regards. |
