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 (8387)	2/25/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

>> Clinton and company are acting as guilty as can be. From a "legal stance" this is a truly astonishing statement. Truly. You actually think the Clintons are acting like innocent parties? I just watched NBC and ABC Nightly News programs. Both had legal experts on that stated that Clinton has no chance in successfully exerting executive privilege in this case because that privilege is always confined to "official business" and usually only in matters of national security. One smiled and said " You would have to convince the courts that Monica Lewinsky was official business". Both programs then said that the WH was using the privilege claim as a delaying tactic - something unusual for a President who wants the truth out fast, wouldn't you agree? NBC added that they are not sure that Clinton has actually invoked executive privilege because the WH maintains that the court has ordered them not to divulge that information. NBC then said that WH claim is not true and that the WH could tell them - but that they want to invoke it without officially saying so. Gee, the WH lying? How unusual. And how unusual that they want things both ways - invoking it without acknowledging so.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8387)	2/26/1998 12:26:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, do you recall how, when this thing first became public, Clinton declared that he simply wants "the truth", and that his White House would "fully cooperate" with the investigation? From then on, Clinton's attorneys have done everything in their power that could possibly be construed as legal to avoid telling the truth. Unless of course, you believe that Clinton was telling the truth when he looked America in the eye and said "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman; Ms. Lewinsky, not one time, not ever". Let's just presume for a moment that that was THE TRUTH. So why the ensuing mud-slinging at Starr, and the desperate attempts to keep anyone who might know anything from testifying. Now Clinton plans on invoking executive privilige for virtually everyone on his staff that hasn't already been called to testify. You know what this reminds me of? Saddam Hussein desperately attempting to keep Americans off the inspection team, and desperately trying to stop the inspections altogether. I mean, it's baffling. If Clinton has been telling the truth, then why are his attorneys so desperate to keep anyone from saying anything to the grand jury? Why the desperate attempt to shift focus onto other peripheral matters, such as Starr's subhuman treatment of Lewinsky's mother, and Starr's treatment of blah blah blah, Starr is the focus of evil in the free world. So, I have a supposition for you -- Suppose you were given ultimate power over Starr's investigation -- let's say you are Janet Reno, or simply just have a magic wand. Would you remove Ken Starr from the investigation, because he's too "pahtisan", his staffers are too "tainted", etc? Would that make you happy? Would that make the Clinton defense attorneys happy? Would the Clintons be more cooperative with the new counsel sent by Janet Reno? Keep in mind that we have an apparent instance of Monica Lewinsky contradicting herself, once under oath and the other time on 22 hours tape, the jist of which is that, if the tape is the accurate one, then Clinton looks awfully guilty of lying under oath also, and "the talking points" memo possibly encouraging someone else to lie about it. So let's just assume that the next choice is not to simply drop the whole investigation. So, what does your magic wand do? Who do you hire to replace Starr, if indeed you would decide to replace him?