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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (4830)	9/11/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Bill Grant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

No, it is not possible that Starr found "absolutely no evidence" linking Clinton to Whitewater. It is possible that the evidence is less than conclusive. It is most likely that, since Whitewater took place long before Clinton became President, Starr elected to interpret the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement for impeachment to apply in the strictest sense only to actions taking place during Clinton's tenure as President. It is likely that the Whitewater evidence will be/has been turned over to the three judge panel for possible indictment and prosecution at a later date.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (4830)	9/11/1998 7:48:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Ann- I expect a president not to engage in perjury and obstruction of justice. I expect the president to obey the same laws that I am obliged to follow. Frankly, I also expect him not to use the White House as his little sex shop- and I don't expect the president to baldly lie to the American people to protect his own image. I hardly call these expectations of "perfection"- they are minimal basic requirements of rule of law and common decency in my opinion. To say I have demanded "perfection" of Clinton is idiotic and false. Is their nothing too sleazy Bill Clinton could do for your tastes? Have you no respect for either the office of the presidency or the rule of law? Does integrity mean anything to you? If it does, it escapes me. You are the one who impugned Starr's motives with no evidence other than your own bias- and that is a pathetic and corrupt attempt to justify your own preconceived notions. No breath of scandal that I know of has tainted Mr. Starr's life, and it is simply outrageous that you presume to attack his integrity. You appear not to think, so much as to emote. You show no evidence of dealing intelligently with issues that are posed to you- you respond with irrelevancies. It is possible Starr found NO evidence connecting Sleazebag Bill to years ago events known as Whitewater, what with stonewalling and the timely death of "star" witnesses. It may also be that he found insufficient evidence to bring to an impeachment proceeding. I gather he only included in the report things he thought could be sustained in an impeachment proceeding. I would have preferred that he had taken a more expansive position than he reportedly did. He should have detailed all that was questionable, even if he thought it was not actionable at this time. He should have done so for the historical record. I hope historians have access to all his investigation records, not just what he has published. You certainly cannot logically conclude based on Starr's report that Sleazebag Bill was innocent in the matter of Whitewater- not that logic is your long strong suit. I'll pass on your recommendations for what I might enjoy in life. As for partisanship, my comments on this thread have not indicated my political persuasion- so how do you know my motives are partisan? You seem very knowledgeable about other people's motives. Is Senator Lieberman also a pathetic partisan? You, on the other hand, impugn peoples motives with no knowledge or evidence to justify your claims, and that makes you a rather despicable person in my book. Larry