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 Grant who wrote (5988)	9/16/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Not at all. But you have to realize that convicting or impeaching a person is a very public process. The defendants have a "story" and the prosecutors have a "story." You have to remain "on message" to get your story across correctly. The story Starr wants to tell you about Bill Clinton is that he used people and betrayed people and did illegal things because he is a selfish sex addict. This story requires there to be a betrayed wife, Hillary, and a used secretary, Betty. Yes, Starr can do without them, but he's got less of a chance to win without them. On the other hand, BC's story is that Starr is a right-wing crazy who will indict anything and everything to get the President. If Starr indicts Betty and Hillary during the pendency of the impeachment hearing, then Starr plays right into Bill's story. I think as a matter of practicality, Starr will not indict Hillary or Betty. Anyway, I haven't seen or heard anything that would lead me to believe that Betty or Hillary should be indicted. Currie was confused and scared. Her public image fits that to a tee, and her testimony struck me as the same. Her lack of recall was not only believable, it was most likely true. She's an extremely sympathetic figure--caught in the middle of her President and an aggressive prosecutor. I would not want to prosecute her. Hillary did not do anything wrong on Whitewater, and unless you're talking about a tenuous claim that she was the person that secreted away the Rose Law Firm billing records, I think she's free and clear. She also has an excellent personal reputation in Washington DC, and I would not want to prosecute her either. Doughboy.