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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alan w who wrote (1443)	9/24/1998 11:32:00 AM
From: Joe Wagner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1533

I think after all of this is finally over, in hind sight it may be worth looking at whether or not a civil lawsuit should be postponed until after a President is out of office. The ability to subvert the process by a President's political enemies seems unfair, and opens the door for abuse of the legal system by forcing a President to expose personal weak spots for the pleasure of his enemies and turns the airways into a spectacular circus of debate on the Presidents personal failings and his ability to govern. If it had been postponed in Clinton's case the Starr Report would have stayed on track with its original purpose of confirming whether or not there was wrong doing in White Water, etc. and the President would have received a trial after office in a nonpartisan, noncircus like environment, and the purpose of Paula Jone's lawsuit would have been to seek honest redress and not the downfall of the Presidency or some inflated compensation because the Presidency was at stake. It would have been nice to hear something in the report about the original claims of Whitewater etc, to confirm or deny the allegations that started the whole investigation. Unfortunately a civil case has been elevated suspiciously into a lethal weapon against the Presidents career. The question should be, was their any collaboration and subversion in the process for the purpose of bringing down the Presidency; subversion, collaboration, and funding of witnesses that would not have happened if this case had proceeded after he left office. If it is true then a law should be passed to prevent this in the future, and it should be determined if any wrong doing was done on the part of people attempting to turn a civil case into a weapon against the Presidency.