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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (3609)	9/18/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Sorry. Yes, 17 is very different from 22. Doug

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (3609)	9/18/1998 3:02:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Now I hear some Republican Judiciary member suggesting that the public should feel outrage and backlash against Democrats because some House Judiciary members were "acting like criminal defense attorneys", and arguing Clinton's side. Good grief. How far in the direction of a star chamber proceeding do they think this should go? Any comments on my problems with this wholesale release of material normally kept under seal because the way it is gathered is so inherently one sided and prejudicial? exchange2000.com and exchange2000.com Doug

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (3609)	9/18/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, I think this debate is doing some good. It is exposing the real motives of the Clinton haters. The Republican hypocrisy is becoming manifest. If anyone did that to my son I would take them apart in every way that I could find. There is no way that I would let an offense like that pass.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (3609)	9/18/1998 3:13:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The Crane and Studds scandals were revealed at the same time. Both were censured for their sexual relationships with the teenagers. I recall that neither was charged with statutory rape (perhaps someone might know for sure). That age is currently 16 in most states and D.C., I believe. I don't think there was much hypocrisy on those ones.