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: Grainne who wrote (4912)	2/6/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 20981

You know, I feel really sorry for George Stephanopoulos. He is an idealist, and worked for Clinton because he believed in his platform. You are not for REAL. He's a politician. Or rather, was. Now he's a journalist, and has transferred his loyalties.

To: Grainne who wrote (4912)	2/7/1998 8:13:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Hi Christine: Did you see the Charlie Rose show last night? Michael Kinsley of Slate (formerly of Crossfire) asked Evan Thomas of Newsweek "then just who did leak Currie's testimony?" Thomas said the it did not come from the office of the IC. Thomas would not, however, say who leaked it, but he said that they knew who did. Did you see Nightline? Stewart Taylor of the National Journal and PBS Newshour's legal contributor said that Kendall's threat was a a tactic, a smoke screen and a diversion. Taylor said Kendall will be slapped down in Court. Here's Starr's response to Kendall: WASHINGTON - Following is a letter to President Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall, by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, as provided by Starr's office: Your letter of Feb. 6, 1998, accusing this office of improperly disclosing information, including grand jury testimony, is strange and inappropriate for three significant reasons. First, you elevate mere suspicion to specific accusation without any facts other than the press' often-misleading attributions of sources. Second, the timing of your letter - arriving in the midst of what appears to be an orchestrated plan to deflect and distract this investigation - undermines your expression of outrage. Third, we are aware that as of several days ago, the President's defense attorneys had most, if not all, of the material information (whether true or not) set forth in today's New York Times article. In my service as independent counsel, particularly with regard to the secrecy of the grand jury, I have insisted on a high commitment to professional conduct. I have expressed this commitment to you repeatedly. From the beginning, I have made the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the Office. It is a firing offense, as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution. In the case of each allegation of improper disclosure, we have thoroughly investigated the facts and reminded the staff that leaks are utterly intolerable. In light of the unclear press attributions in some examples cited in your letter, I have undertaken an investigation to determine whether, despite my persistent admonitions, someone in this office may be culpable. I have no factual basis - as you likewise do not have - even to suspect anyone at this juncture. I am undertaking this investigation with deep regret, because I know how demoralizing it is to a staff of highly professional and experienced Federal prosecutors. You do an extreme disservice to these men and women - and to the legal profession and the public - by your unsupported charges. Indeed, the ''facts'' from the press that you cite as evidence of misconduct were, in each case, known to individuals outside my office. These individuals include witnesses, my lawyers, and others. Let me cite one noteworthy example: Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, has told the world that he was in touch with lawyers on both sides of the pending civil case. The ''leaks'' that you complain about, thus, may have come from sources close to those under investigation. Those sources would have a clear and manifest motivation to release harmful information with carefully crafted defenses in order to lessen the painful impact of such evidence when it is revealed through official proceedings. Finally, your role as private defense counsel and your loyalty to your client does not qualify you to lecture me on professional conduct and my legal responsibilities. I believe you know where I stand and have always stood on these issues. Fiercely aggressive representation, including through media grandstanding, cannot be an excuse for smearing a lawyer through reckless accusations. Let's stick to facts. Let's find out the truth. drudgereport.com Judging by the ferocity of the Clinton administration's attempts to undermine Judge Starr, I would say that it's an easy bet that Starr has the upper hand. Btw, did you see that Ginsburg now says that Starr gave Monica an immunity deal and has backed out? He says he's going to court to have it enforced. I think Ginsburg is some sort of comedy routine. Events have shown that there was obviously no final deal. Anyway, usually any immunity deal would have had to have been approved by a judge before it's final. Ginsburg seems to have hurt Monica as much, if not more, than anyone else.