Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (14236)	5/21/2001 2:15:37 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22706

Have we tossed out "innocent until proven guilty"? of course not...clinton was suspected of a crime and an investigation was initiated. that is the same procedure used for every criminal. what convictions resulted from that $50M? Any in the White House? i believe we all know the answer to that...it isn't one of those trick questions is it? i think you should register a complaint with the democratic leadership that dragged the country through the mess. hell clinton could have spared us (and saved all that $)with a bit of honesty earlier. he waited until he was sure their was sufficient proof to prove he was a...well you know what. my fondest memory of the guy is him on tv waggling his finger at us while announcing that he did not have sex with "that woman". the dress changed all that around. what a fxxxxxg liar. you can have him.

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (14236)	5/21/2001 10:46:58 PM
From: red jinn	Respond to of 22706

you asked "what convictions resulted from that $50M? Any in the White House?how many convictions resulted from the $50M?" it may have slipped peoples' minds (b/c, of course, it wasn't widely reported) that starr was, relatively speaking, the most successful independent prosecutor, securing something like 14 convictions in 17 attempts, including a sitting governor. that was far more successful than lawrance walsh, who, in contrast, secured a couple of plea bargins i believe, which is understandable given that few folks have the resources to fight the taxpayer-funded office. the senate refused to impeach the president, but that's a far cry from saying no crime. if it had been anyone of us, the jury would have convicted. as wd the senate (at least if those who voted against impeachment can be believed when they said they thought clinton lied to the grand jury, but they weren't going to remove him from office). so the office protected clinton. it wasn't the fact that he was innocent. heck, even the judge found him in contempt. when was the last time that happened to a president? red jinn