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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (2873)	9/15/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You know Bill, you really need to wait until this process is complete before you express you disappointment in Judge Starr. For example, I just heard today there may be a follow-on report which exclusively deals with Bruce Lindsey.....bp

To: Bill who wrote (2873)	9/15/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>My problem with what Starr did focuses on the construction of his report. He devoted more time to the sex than he did to the crimes this corrupt president committed. That fed Starr's detractors. I am very disappointed in him.< Dear sir: The President's major claim in the Lewinsky matter is that he did not legally have sex. The evidence proves otherwise. Starr dumped this evidence to drive home the point of perjury, one of Clinton's crimes. I hardly think Starr had additional evidence on the other charges that he did not submit. He had a great deal of evidence regarding Clinton's nonsex sex-- hence the amount of sexual evidence. (But the evidence against Clinton on the other matters is remarkably compelling).