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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (5427)	9/25/1998 11:44:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

He NEVER had enough evidence to make an impeachment referral to Congress. That's what I said. That's what happened. No one cares whether he got mad at Bush, tough cookies. No evidence. No crime. A policy dispute with a democrat congress. Period. A personal attack on Bush and Reagan. A partisan 7 year witch hunt that led to NOTHING. No matter how many biased opinion pieces and "everybody does it" excuses you make.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (5427)	9/25/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What I should have said to you: Read My Lips, No Impeachment Referral! Read my original post again. I know that would be difficult for your type, but try anyway.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (5427)	9/26/1998 7:23:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Dan, I think this post was dead on, well researched, and well reasoned. My ultimate feeling about Iran-Contra and the Starr investigations is that together the make a fine, by partisan indictment of the over-reaching nature of the Independent Counsel statute. Which I think should be radically reformed or eliminated. I do think that Judge Walsh acted with a bit more restraint that Starr, on certainly weightier matters. Probably has something to do with Bush getting off. Reagan got off largely because he was too senile to really be running the country at least during his second term. (He gave speeches; his aides governed.) However, by the time the Iran-Contra investigation really got going I thought it should be ended. I felt it was distasteful and essentially concerned policy differences. Yet I think if Walsh had acted as fanatically as the Jones lawyers/Starr team, he probably could have generated (or perhaps did) some Presidential perjury. Junk the statute. Doug