SI
SI
discoversearch

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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (8436)2/25/1998 8:01:00 PM
From: Triluminary  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
Regardless of the 1st amendment questions raised there seems to be a differing degree of indignation here.

On the one hand we have Starr who has requested "documents involving contacts he [Blumenthal] may have had with journalists regarding Starr's office" and all hell breaks loose.

On the other hand we have Blumenthal an active agent of the President of the United States who threatens a private citizen (Drudge) with a $30 million lawsuit if he doesn't "Disclose to them the following: the names of the 'top GOP operatives'... the name of the 'influential republican who demanded anonymity'... and the name of the 'White House source' whom you purported to quote" his sources." From the press barely a peep.

Why didn't the press get upset when Blumenthal sued Drudge? Anyone else notice a slight bias in the press?



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (8436)2/25/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: jhild  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
Well betty, if after reading that you think that Starr is within his rights to subpoena Blumenthal for disseminating old news stories, I can offer you no assistance. There is no violation of that law cited.