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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8358)	2/25/1998 5:38:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

I'm sorry to say this Dwight, but what you are saying about obstruction of justice is nonsense, pure and simple. I am floored to think that there are people that actually can see a nexus with obstruction of justice from remarks critical about Starr and his lieutenants, regardless of the source. I hope that you are not being blinded by your desire to get the President. What this is, is abuse of subpoena powers. This isn't about leaks of grand jury testimony. It's about the fact that Starr's prosecutors have been caught in the past abridging the rights of defendants. It's the fact that this information has been drawn to the attention of the media. That's what this obstruction of justice charge is about. The end does not justify the means. This is a cynical attempt to intimidate. Regardless of what Clinton has done, the country deserves better from the process of justice. Broadening his inquiry in this fashion serves no probative value, other than to demonstrate his partisan machismo.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8358)	2/25/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 20981

jhild, by attacking Starr, the Clinton administration is obstructing justice, pure and simple. C'mon, Dwight, that's rubbish of the first order. Criticism is not a crime. Pointing out that members of his staff have been censured in the past for overzealousness is not a crime, either, and in my view it needs to be brought to our attention. Starr isn't complaining about White House "leaks" (and, um, I wonder why not); he's bitching because the White House has been investigating his guys' prosecutorial records. Trust me: if someone ever comes after me the way Starr's come after Clinton, I'll do the same. And then some. Why do you feel that Starr, and only Starr, is sacrosanct, and has a right to consider himself to be above the law?