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 (8407)	2/25/1998 7:17:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Just how many times are you going to maintain your studied ignorance in this matter?

To: jhild who wrote (8407)	2/25/1998 9:39:00 PM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

jhild,,I don't get you ,, Why would Starr subpoena these people except to get at the truth or to ferret out someone in his own tribe who may be the leak? Either way it would seem he is seeking the truth. I thought that was his job. <<Lewinsky was initially pressured >>,,, by whom? <<<Starr has subpoenaed those that he believes have floated stories, apparently true stories, about his people overstepping the rights of defendants. >>> If he feels guilty of this accusation , then it does not compute that he would subpoena them, at least not to me. <<The floating of these stories somehow constitutes obstruction of justice. I am apparently fielding criticism because there are those here that agree that it is obstruction of justice. I find that position fascinating.>>> Certainly in my mind as a juror, as we all are, to some extent, it is an obstruction of justice. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the prosecutor as incompetent and untrustworthy. russell