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.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Diogeron who wrote (2089)	1/27/1998 10:28:00 AM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

The attack on Starr is by left wing radicals who want to hide the truth of Clinton's misdeeds from the public. So each side cancels each other out.

To: Diogeron who wrote (2089)	1/27/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

I guess you haven't the recent Washington Post article by former Watergate chief counsel and Dem Sam Dash: Sam Dash, once chief counsel to the Senate Watergate committee and now ethics counsel to Mr. Starr's investigation, wrote a piece in defense of the independent counsel law. But the argument he made in favor of the law -- a response to a piece in The Post in which Norman Ornstein made a case against it, citing the inherent dangers of runaway investigations -- wasn't what was striking. What was striking was this sentence: "Thus, if Ornstein were a fly on the wall of an independent counsel conference room, as I have been more conveniently at the table as ethics counsel to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, he would observe overcautiousness and restraint rather than the buccaneering conduct of his imagination." Excuse me, but did Mr. Starr's own ethics counsel just accuse him of "overcautiousness"? Not "cautiousness and restraint" -- admirable qualities by anybody's reckoning -- but "overcautiousness and restraint."