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: robnhood who wrote (9071)	3/1/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

rman, Please read my post reply#9064 (I believe) in which I go into more depth as to what I see as the greater threat in this ongoing "investigation." How many years has it been now? Also, it would be wise to give some thought to the legal precedents we are allowing to be created. Holly

To: robnhood who wrote (9071)	3/1/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: BlueCrab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Holly, rrman -- In light of the discussion of "self-perpetuating", my response is "J. Edgar Hoover". Starr must get Clinton on something or his career is in a baggie. And, after seeing his act over the past two months, I must say that a baggie is exactly where his career and reputation belong. One would think that as a Washington insider, he would have been delighted to conclude his - apparently interminable - job as SP after the actual Whitewater investigation to go out and make big buckolas, but it would appear that no one wanted his services. Either that or he is on retainer to parties unknown. In any case, he is an embarassment both to the profession (a difficult thing to achieve!) and to the Constitution.

To: robnhood who wrote (9071)	3/1/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

PS,, the menacing appearance is probably fostered in large part due to roadblock stance of the defendants.. I couldn't be in greater agreement with Holly about the dangers presented by special prosecutors run amok. If they must exist at all, their brief should be made clear from the start, and should not be extended without very good reason. They should NOT be allowed to conduct a fishing expedition. I wasn't joking when I said it seems Starr wants to subpeona anyone Clinton's ever met, just in case. And as noted previously, special prosecutors assigned to investigate public officials should be restricted to investigating ONLY matters having to do with said officials' conduct of their office. Anything else can be dealt with through ordinary channels. Wanna go after Clinton for illegal campaign contributions? Okay. "Travelgate"? Not so sure. Whitewater? No. Adultery? Certainly not. I ask again: how would YOU feel if a guy with an expense account that runs to the tens of millions decided to check YOUR life out? Something tells me you wouldn't like it. At all.