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: jhild who wrote (8354)	2/25/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

jhild, by attacking Starr, the Clinton administration is obstructing justice, pure and simple. By the way, it has been admitted by one source on a morning TV talk show that one leak concerning the Starr grand jury testimony came from "sources close to the President's defense". Remember that, through joint agreements, the Clinton attorneys have access to the testimony given, and in fact Clinton attorneys helped for instance Betty Currie obtain an attorney for herself. It's obvious to me that, in order to stir up trouble and to make Starr look bad, the Clinton attorneys are leaking grand jury testimony, then loudly and acrimoniously blaming it on Starr, in order to damage his reputation. This is out-of-control and an obstruction of justice, but what's new? What's more, the mainstream press is playing along with the game, as usual. What's ironic is that the press knows who their confidential sources are, and yet they won't ever say who the sources are, or even which side is leaking the testimony, if either. The witnesses themselves may be calling the TV shows. They [the media] look to me to be guilty of a vast conspiracy to obstruct justice, and should be prosecuted. DK

To: jhild who wrote (8354)	2/25/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20981

I know that Starr has integrity and that the Clintonistas are out of control- the actions and stances of the parties scream that. Every day we see the crazy Clinton people screaming nonsense and I see Starr acting calm and professional. As for what you wrote, it's just not sentient and that's too bad. Everything Starr has done is both legal and proper. Clinton and company are acting as guilty as can be. That Blumenthal guy has been investigating and intimidating journalists who have the backbone to tell the truth and then he has the gall to accuse others chilling the press! Amazing. Clinton has accomplished only two things as President - 1)making Richard Nixon look realtively honest and truthful and 2)causing a new term to be coined: Clintonism: The act of shamelessly and aggressively accusing others falsely of acts that the accuser is guilty of. We are only one month into this and Clinton is looking far worse than anyone could have imagined from a legal stance. The rest will follow.

To: jhild who wrote (8354)	2/25/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

So you are saying that what has been said about the investigators is untrue? I have yet to hear any denials about this. Not even from the prosecutors themselves. But lucky Starr. So far, of course, he's one of the few people involved in this mess not looking at six-figure legal bills, innocent or guilty (of something-or-other, or perhaps merely accused of once having shaken Bill's hand). So he can afford to be as hysterical as he likes. AND he gets PAID for it.

To: jhild who wrote (8354)	2/25/1998 9:45:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Do you read much of the mainstream press? Newspapers, newsmagazines? Do you watch the network news on television? These are my primary sources for information about the Starr investigation, and I read and hear day after day about how the strategy of the White House is to CHANGE THE SUBJECT, to distract the American people from what is actually going on. This is a fairly widespread legal tactic, practiced when the defense wants to create a distraction because the accused may well be guilty. The fact that the mainstream press is reporting it, not the far right, certainly gives it some credence. There are several parts to this strategy, which was developed very deliberately at the White House and began to play out publicly the day Mrs. Clinton said she and her husband were just the victims of a very long, right-wing conspiracy. Much of the tactic simply involves stretching this out until the American public becomes bored and loses interest--not very long, since most people base their opinions on a couple of sound bites per day. Hillary's admonition to "take a deep breath" and her statement that the scandal will dissipate--run of of steam--are attempts to spin reality, and she is doing a pretty good job of it so far. George Stephanopoulos, Clinton's former top aide, first warned two or three weeks ago on ABC that behind the scenes, the White House was putting the word out that they would smear anyone who got in their way. Now the administration denied over the weekend that they had hired private investigators to probe the prosecutorial staff, but the investigation firm they hired came forth and said they had indeeed been brought on board. Then the White House admitted it, but said they were only to peruse the "public record". Gee, private eyes to investigate the public record, hmmmm, something smells a little. Then we have Mike McCurry's statements of last week, saying that if there were a simple explanation, he thought it would have already come out, and that the art was telling the truth slowly . . . after the American public becomes bored, maybe? I have now heard MANY legal experts on PBS and the other networks, and also in the print media, over a period of several days this week, saying that the White House has almost no chance of successfully asserting executive privilege, for Bruce Lindsey or anyone else, AND that the strategy is to draw the grand jury hearings out for several months, and delay the proceedings. Starr, incidentally, was originally chosen for the job of prosecutor because even though he is a Republican, he was perceived as "professorial", and non-partisan by both sides. My goodness, this is a guy so straight and narrow that he shined his family's shoes for fun when he was growing up!! While there is a valid argument that can be presented for him giving up his law practice while this is going on, I have seen absolutely no evidence of any documented unprofessional conduct. When you see the White House lawyers outside the grand jury, complaining indignantly that their jobs are more important than this, and they were called to testify but had to wait, that, too is simply spin. The system is not perfect, and there may be momentary inconveniences. But this staging and whining is simply to change public perception. Christine (no Martians around here!)