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: Grainne who wrote (12885)	4/4/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

The Times is now owned by Rupert Murdoch.... Need I say more?

To: Grainne who wrote (12885)	4/5/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

You are quite correct that the Times article is well-reasoned and articulate in stating where Clinton wallows today. Andrew Sullivan rarely disappoints those interested in the truth. But guess what, there is also some measure of sanity left on the Dem Left: the Washington Post, (the equal of the Dem NYT and almost as prestigious as the Times), in effect says "Vindication? Please don't be so asinine": Lead editorial WP: Lingering Questions Sunday, April 5, 1998; Page C06 DEMOCRATS lost no time using the dismissal of Paula Jones's sexual harassment case to pressure independent counsel Kenneth Starr to wrap up his criminal investigation. The argument is somewhat muddled, but it seems to be that the public does not care much about the remaining allegations, that Mr. Starr's rather unpopular investigation has gone on too long already, and that the Jones win provides a kind of global vindication for the president. Mr. Starr should, like all independent counsels, conduct his probe as quickly as he can, but the suggestion that the dismissal of the Jones case should hasten or moot the rest of his investigation is wrongheaded. Mr. Starr has a series of questions before him that are of varying degrees of public importance but which all require answers before he can fold up shop. These questions include: Whether, as Mr. Starr's original mandate put it, "any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law . . . relating in any way to James B. McDougal's, President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationships" with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. Whether White House officials lied to investigators probing the firing of the White House Travel Office employees. Whether White House officials broke any laws when they acquired and hoarded hundreds of FBI background files on prominent Republicans. Whether the president committed perjury when he denied under oath groping Kathleen Willey and having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Whether the president urged Ms. Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit to a federal court. Whether any White House official obstructed justice (or conspired to do so) by getting Ms. Lewinsky a job or by giving "talking points" to Linda Tripp to change her testimony concerning Ms. Willey's encounter with the president. It is worth emphasizing that the importance of none of these questions depends on the merits of Ms. Jones's case. If it is important -- and we believe that it is -- for the public to know whether the president lied under oath and obstructed justice, it should not be less so because the president ultimately prevailed in the case. Mr. Starr is in the unenviable position of running an investigation of a distasteful subject concerning the president in a politically charged environment while being, himself, under assault. He has done himself no favors with his extracurricular political activities, his occasionally inappropriate subpoenas and his almost casual disregard for the appearance of impartiality. But neither these shortcomings nor the summary judgment in the Jones case should be read to prejudge the questions his investigation must ultimately answer. Mr. Starr's obligation remains unchanged: He needs to address the matters within his jurisdiction thoroughly and expeditiously. washingtonpost.com Btw, if you watched Cokie this morning you will have seen Stuart Taylor stating that Starr has the goods on Clinton for at least 10 separate counts of perjury plus obstruction of justice. He asserts that Clinton's ship will be sunk - which is why Clinton & Cronies do everything to obstruct and delay. The best is yet to come.(No pun intended)