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: j_b who wrote (4623)	9/22/1998 12:06:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The abuse of power charges are silly. Asserting privileges, attorney client and executive, for determination by the courts? Some of which Clinton won? And then he complied with all court decisions. That is abuse of office. Its much closer to a frivolous charge. Clearly shows how unhinged Starr has become in his pursuit of Clinton. Telling his Cabinet the same misleading, or perhaps outright false, information he was telling the public when he initially denied his affair? That's absurd. It's trying to criminalize lying not under oath. Would Starr have been happier if Clinton had told his Cabinet the full truth and then asked them to keep it quite? He had absolutely no choice but to tell his Cabinet something. Their repeating what he had himself said publicly added nothing to Clinton's offenses, clearly. I have seen nothing close to a strong case for obstruction of justice so far. It's not at all clear that Clinton was coaching witnesses. Some coaching re: the press or others without the clear intent that testimony under oath be altered is a very different matter, and not at all illegal. His GJ explanations were plausible. Sure, if you detest him you won't believe anything. Threatening the job of a secret service agent, even if he really did do it (rather than an underling responding to his less specific anger) is hardly obstruction or abuse of office. SS agents aren't supposed to tell gate visitors who the Pres. is seeing, period. The hiding evidence case (gifts) case against Clinton seems especially weak. I think the real source of that idea is Lewinsky's mother. Certainly not clear its Clinton. The GJ testimony made out a case for a Clinton who was trying to hide his affair from public discovery before testimony was required, and for a Clinton who was prepared to mislead and hope Monica would mislead, while avoiding perjury during testimony. But who would also only go so far, and repeatedly counseled telling the truth under oath, even if that meant it he was under some peril as a result. Doug