To: lazarre who wrote (14916 ) 9/13/1998 12:57:00 AM From: Clarksterh Respond to of 152472
Lazarre - **OT** I'm not sure that I would say that Starr is behaving all that much differently than most public prosecutors, except that he has an endless bankroll. It's pretty clear that there have been some not-so-legal maneuverings on the part of the Clinton's and their associates, but they aren't *quite* enough to convict (the Hillary futures deal being the best example). Thus the long lasting nature of the investigating, but I don't see how that makes Starr a villain. (I would say that some of the Republicans have been less than just in the whole thing, but Starr?) Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of what you think is unjust behavior on Starr's part? BTW - I actually agree that there ought to be more limits on the special prosecutor (money? time?, ...), but that is the fault of Congress, not Starr, and I haven't seen him do anything I would consider unconstitutional or illegal.(?) Clark PS Just as a rebuttal to Doug, I couldn't care less if Clinton decided to have orgies once a year instead of going to the yearly Hilton Head Island retreat. And I only marginally care about his original lying under oath - neither would effect the functioning of a company CEO, so I can't worry to much about Bill, and as has been said many times civil case perjury is rarely prosecuted. What I do care about is that he seems constitutionally incapable of telling the truth without being completely forced, and he seems more than willing to embroil his cabinet and congressional allies, albeit sometimes willfully ignorant and sometimes completely ignorant, in lies and coverup. My concern is for the continual functioning of the government under conditions where no one trusts the leader.