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: Bill who wrote (5832)	9/15/1998 1:07:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Respond to of 13994

Bill, Betty will not be indicted for one simple reason: she is an important corroborating witness. Starr had to make a decision, either to attack Currie, convict her, and get her to flip on the President or to use her current testimony against the President. A prosecutor cannot simultaneously charge a person with perjury while at the same time trying to use that testimony to convict someone else. It's self-defeating. I think Starr decided to use her testimony. Her testimony is damaging enough to the President--and appears largely truthful. Besides, she's an extremely sympathetic figure; I think a DC jury would acquit her in about 2-3 minutes of deliberation. Doughboy.

To: Bill who wrote (5832)	9/15/1998 2:33:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Bill- Starr has obtained 14 convictions during the course of his investigations (according to WSJ). You might cite that figure next time some nitwit goes nitpicking about the $$ spent by the OIC. BTW, I have an acquaintance who knew Kenneth Starr reasonably well during his academic days. My acquaintance is pained by the derision heaped on this man who has done an effective job in ferreting out official corruption. By his estimation, Starr is a man of the highest honor and rectitude. It is amazing how people cast blame on him for reporting about Sleazebag Bill's antics and crookedness. I suspect most of these people have a vested interest- perhaps only an emotional one- in Sleazebag Bill's political survival (in some cases I think people don't want to recognize that they misplaced their trust). Anybody on this thread familiar with how the European parliamentary democracies have responded when a PM was as scandal-ridden as the President of the United States? Or is Clinton sufficiently abject that there is no comparison? Would ministers have a sense of obligation to step down in such a government? At very least, I suspect coalition partners would desert such a sleazy crook as quick as fleas off a recently deceased rat. I wonder about this in the context of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our respective systems. Larry