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: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/25/1998 6:34:00 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 20981

Come on Dwight, you know that only Clinton is above the law. alan w

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/25/1998 6:38:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>You don't 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.<< Would you care to document Ken Starr's "bitching"?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/25/1998 7:04:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 20981

Trying for it...

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/25/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 20981

Janice, since the modus operandi of the day is to attack the opponent's credibility, then I think it's only fair to delve into the record of the Clinton staff also, correct? If it "needs to be brought to our attention", as you say. So, in view of the Clinton administration's record on felony indictments, convictions and jail terms sentenced, let's compare this list against Starr's office. Let's see.."censured in the past for overzealousness" on Starr's staff's side. On the Clinton staff side....do you see where this nonsense of counter attack leads? There's no end. The OJ defense method worked on LA jurors, but I'm loath to believe that the American public at large is so naive as to be swayed by such childish behavior. I don't know why Starr hasn't complained about White House leaks; probably because he's busy, and has better things to do than wage a campaign of insults with the Clinton administration and their paid staff of attack dogs. People like James "he's a known pahtisan" Carville aren't worthy of response. Re Why do you feel that Starr, and only Starr, is sacrosanct, and has a right to consider himself to be above the law? I don't think that, and I don't know where you've got that idea. If members of Starr's staff have committed felonies, then Janet Reno needs to see that Justice investigates those things. Meanwhile, Starr has been appointed by Janet Reno to investigate Whitewater, among other things, and attacking the investigator who is doing his job isn't going to get Clinton off the hook. Let's just say that Starr is fired by Janet Reno. Would that make the Clinton camp shut up and let the next prosecutor Janet Reno appoints do their job? Something tells me no. DK

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/25/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 20981

Also re Trust me: if someone ever comes after me the way Starr's come after Clinton, I'll do the same. And then some. Exactly, Janice. Pretend you are Kenneth Starr, and the White House has "came after you": Well let's see: Who started the smear campaign, a.k.a. "confrontational tack", the White House or Kenneth Starr,,,hmmm?? Was it perhaps 1) Hillary, blaming a "Right wing conspiracy"? 2) James Carville, who keeps chanting "he's a known pahtisan" (jhild seems to be paying particularly close attention to Carville). 3) Kendall, a Clinton attorney who publicly blasted Starr's office for "leaks" when in fact the leaks could have come from a) Starr's office b) the White House, and c) the testifyers themselves. All three were possible sources for leaks. Now we see from the earlier article posted "The developments show a willingness by Kenneth Starr to take a particularly confrontational tack with his White House adversaries." Gee, like umm I wonder where Starr learned of such tactics? If Clinton's whining, "change the subject" attorneys can't take the heat, then they should stay out of the kitchen. DK

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8377)	2/26/1998 5:56:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, you and jhild, Surething, and all the others who may think Starr is "out of control" must have really been outraged then, with the way Lawrence Walsh went after Oliver North, since you say, "if someone ever comes after me the way Starr's come after Clinton, I'll do the same. And then some. During the Iran-Contra investigation, Walsh subpoenaed: 1) Oliver North's wife (there goes husband-wife privilige) 2) Oliver North's attorney (there goes client-attorney privilige) 3) Oliver North's pastor (there goes privilige between a person and their spiritual counselor). Do you all agree then, that Walsh was "out of control", and going way beyond anything that was relevant? Or perhaps have some of you only recently become concerned with such things as an individual's rights when being investigated by an independent counsel? Were you also aware that, in his final written report to Congress, Lawrence Walsh referenced specific grand jury testimony 600 times, when such references is forbidden by law? Where was the outrage against such a man as Walsh? Truly it was a dark time for individual rights, and yet the liberals were silent on this matter. Seems like in regards to Starr, liberals have suddenly got religion. DK