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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (39268)	3/18/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) of 67261

I checked, and I did indeed misremember the order of things from almost two months ago. I am amazed that you found things so expeditiously. In fact, I had completely forgotten j.g. cordes! I thought you had posted the article. Or perhaps I confused the original article with a later article that you were touting. And you are also right that you have missed the larger point. Two hits in one post! Pretty good! Anyway, allow me to repost more of what I said: Actually, Paula decided to come forward after an allusion to the incident in David Brock's original article on Clinton's abuse of office and reckless behavior in Little Rock. She was not enlisted. Her original attorneys were straightforward litigators. It was only after it became too expensive to support the suit that conservative groups stepped in. If you believe that Clinton probably did what was charged, why insist that it was only political? And if there were merit to her suit, who cares why she was helped? Would the prospect of splitting a huge settlement be a better motivation for an attorney then the conviction that Clinton gets away with too much, and must be brought to account?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next