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 (4526)	9/22/1998 1:11:00 AM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

RE: Moynihan and his constituency. I think there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. I think NYC money has been on the edge with Clinton a couple of weeks ago, as it was getting worse and worse. There was / is a limit as to how far they would go with him. On the other hand, have no doubt whatsoever that Starr and the Republican charge leaders are ABSOLUTELY REPUSLIVE to this group. It's just a question as to whether there is enough there to rally behind for now. Looking a lot more like it now. Repubs and defecting demos. better watch out. I think Moynihan was genuinely repulsed by the amounts of dissembling, and he has a point. But the context of the political attack that Clinton was under in the the leaking like a sieve frivolous Paula Jones lawsuit is also remarkable. Clinton did an EXCELLENT job of conveying that point in is GJ testimony. Doug

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4526)	9/22/1998 1:13:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Starr didn't simply uncover a little episode with BC and an intern, and you know that. What he was presented with was pretty convincing evidence of Presidential perjury. Must I remind you once again (I guess I do) that Janet Reno was the one who told Starr to expand his investigation. Do you suppose that Ms. Reno simply wanted to know from whom BC got BJs from? If it was simply about that, Ms. Reno would have been shouted out of office a long time ago. But she hasn't, and we know why. And once again: If BC had not insisted that he was "telling the truth" in the PJ deposition and to Judge Susan W-W, Mr. Starr would not have had to publish ANY sexual details. So you see, if there is any purveyor of porn here, it is BC --- he is the one who forced Mr. Starr's hand in the matter. I'm just relieved to see that the Justice Dept didn't cower beneath the assault of Clinton lies. This Starr IC is not acceptable. My my, that carries a lot of weight, Michelle. "Well I never! This Starr has gone too far now!" You know what, Michelle? I think the IRS goes too far, most of the time. They make unreasonable demands of me, demanding answers to things of which I don't know, but nevertheless I am required by law to provide answers by a specific deadline. I don't like them one bit. They're too heavyhanded. And furthermore, I think that most Americans probably feel the same way. So where is the constituency service? Every time the IRS makes another unreasonable demand, I want them to stop---As you also want the Justice Dept to back off of BC---and yet they don't stop.