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: Zoltan! who wrote (17618)	7/28/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Sad to say GreenPee's warped thinking has company: A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL Unreasonable inquiry In subpoenaing President Clinton, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr is pushing the boundaries of reasonableness, as well as the law. The legal questions raised are momentous. Even Republican senators are divided over whether Clinton is constitutionally obliged to answer a subpoena from a special prosecutor or whether the right to compel presidential testimony resides only in the House of Representatives. Starr will be doing the nation and his own investigation serious harm if he seeks to use the Lewinsky matter to force a resolution of such weighty issues. Unless Starr has evidence of far more serious transgressions than those suggested to date by his open faucet of leaks, he should not press the current confrontation. The public has a right to know if Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky because, since she was a White House intern, such a relationship would be a misuse of the office given him by the voters. As loathsome as it would be, however, it would not be a crime. Starr's case looks like an attempt, using a circuitous trail of evidence - including a deposition from the Paula Jones civil case he was not party to - to concoct criminal charges of perjury or obstruction of justice based on the legal maneuvering surrounding an action that - even if proved - is not itself a crime. If this is so, he should fold his tent. This is not the sort of issue on which a presidency should stand or fall. An average citizen would not be dragged before a grand jury in such a case; the very idea is laughable. The president is not above the law. This fundamental tenet of our democracy is supported by a majority of the public, and deserves to be. Recent rulings - including an Appeals Court decision yesterday - adding to those from the Watergate years, strengthen the legal backing of that view. But neither should the president be subject to interminable and unreasonably intrusive probes into matters that should be resolved in the family quarters of the White House and perhaps in the nation's living rooms, but not in court. globe.com