To: j g cordes who wrote (17300 ) 1/30/1998 11:59:00 AM From: Grainne Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
Jim, my personal opinion is that Starr is basically abiding by the law which set up the concept of independent prosecutors after the Watergate debacle in the Nixon administration. You can argue that the law should be changed, and perhaps after this it may be, but I have seen no credible evidence that he is going outside the law. Again, please remember that Clinton's own attorney general agreed on wiring Monica in a criminal sting on the president, and the panel of three federal judges approved it. Hillary is alleging the three federal judges are part of the right-wing conspiracy against him, incidentally. What you are basically expressing is what the Clinton administration's spin team hopes you will believe. That was the whole point of Hillary's complaints about a huge right-wing conspiracy against them. I am not a conservative, and I generally support Democratic candidates, but I do believe the Clintons probably committed a bunch of federal banking felonies back in Arkansas, and this is what started the Whitewater investigation. There are just so many scandals, one after the other, which all have in common lawyerly obfuscation, a seeming disregard for the law, getting people not to testify truthfully, finding high-paying jobs for witnesses (payoffs?), and stonewalling on documents, that Starr was able to effectively argue that a pattern exists, into which fell the Lewinsky affair from the evidence of the same pattern of perjury and obstruction of justice on Linda Tripp's tapes. I am personally disenchanted with the Clintons because their first campaign was all about a new American idealism, which, being a stupid idealist, appealed to me. Now I think it was really a total, calculated scam, and I feel like I was duped.