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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5058)	9/23/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi Betty, Haven't been lurking or doing my occasional dumb post because my ISP had a case of the slows. During my catching up I haven't seen Hiram post. Did he go overboard and get a time out or is he just in recovery?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5058)	9/23/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

BP, the Starr report IS manifestly one sided. My point is that as far as evidence gathering goes, the prosecution should be deemed to have rested. My futher point is that the House's job is analagous to a Grand Jury. Their job is to determine whether Starr has gathered enough evidence, considered by itself without seeing a full presentation of the President's side, to support each, or any, of Starr's charges. And if there is, which, if any, would meet the Constitutional standard of a High Crime and Misdemeanor? Whichever of Starr's charges meet that two part test should be sent to the Senate for trial. At which trial the President must, ultimately, be given a full opportunity to present exculpatory evidence and to cross examine Starr's witnesses. As well as to make arguments about the quality of Starr's case itself, and what is impeachable. The House's job is not evidence collection intensive at all. Starr has done that for the prosecution, which is the House's primary focus. Though I think they should listen to the President's legal arguments as to what is and is not supported by Starr's evidence. As well as anything exculpatory which Starr has found but not provided, or anything the Pres. can readily provide that does not involve cross. House get on with it. Doug