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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Tech Stock Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flickerful who wrote (53998)	9/26/1998 11:45:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58727

flickerful: So, why did Reno keep expanding his role? And, don't tell me she could not have opted for another IC! By the way....I will concede that Reno did not personally appoint Starr. The point I was making is that Starr ultimately worked for Clinton. And, Clinton could fire him for just cause! And, Reno kept using Starr to expand the investigations...no? the three-judge panel in charge of appointing independent counsels abruptly replaced him with Starr. I suppose you would have us believe that the Judges were in the hip pocket of the RNC...right? Seattle Times....is that another name for the Democratic Party Times? Now will you go read a few issues of The American Spectator? Regards, LG

To: flickerful who wrote (53998)	9/27/1998 3:42:00 AM
From: Trey McAtee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58727

flickerful-- the LATIMES? hardly a bastion of non-partisanism. its a stretch at best...if anything it resembles the crap from papers in support of nixon during watergate. the really funny thing is that the press doesnt report a witnesses refusal to testify, they report that starr found nothing. look, this is a snow job. if you believe it, then i have some shares in a small cap to sell you<G>. good luck to all, trey

To: flickerful who wrote (53998)	9/27/1998 6:23:00 AM
From: wily	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58727

Did anyone happen to see the New Yorker article from a few months back concerning Starr's ideological/political/religious heritage, and that of some of his associates? It paints a picture of deep, fundamental, rabid bias. I am no Clinton appologist, and do not really pity his situation. Maybe people get what they deserve... Clinton is smart and well-meaning, if you can say that he means anything...Starr is smart and fanatical and does his job--to a fault. wily