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: Rick Slemmer who wrote (6024)	9/16/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I did read it, and using common sense I deduced that Starr does not have substantial and credible evidence on Whitewater to report to Congress on President Clinton. If Starr had more on Whitewater, he would not have closed down the grand jury in Little Rock. If he already had substantial and credible evidence (after 4 yrs, you'd think he would), he would have done that first, rather than Lewinsky. If he was investigating Filegate or Travelgate, he would have called many more of those witnesses before the Washington grand jury--like Watkins, the Thomasons, Hillary, Dale, Livingstone--which he did not. There's nothing left except a report to the 3-judge panel on Whitewater, saying, "if only we had more time. . . ." BTW, I'm not precluding the possibility that Starr will indict some other FOBs or Hillary. He would be ill-advised to do it, but Starr has never seemed to follow the wisest course. Doughboy.