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: pezz who wrote (7117)	10/4/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes, I think you are right about Starr's evidence on filegate, travelgate and Whitewater. If he had anything against the Clinton's in those invesigations he certainly would have sent it up to the House at, or very soon after, the time of the Lewinsky report. He would have sent it at the time to generate maximum negative momentum. Starr's extreme animus towards Clinton is crystal clear. Doug

To: pezz who wrote (7117)	10/5/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<how has it come to your attention and not Star's? >> You're making a major assumption here. Why do you think it has not come to Starr's attention? IMHO, there is no videotape tying the "gates" directly to BC, so Starr is still looking. The evidence I cited doesn't show that BC actively participated - it could have been Hillary. <<Could it be that on close inspection Star found that none of this "evidence" holds water? >> If that were the case, why did the jury decide in favor of Billy Dale after only a few hours of deliberation? Could it be that he really was harassed? Most of your message assumes that nothing was found during the investigation. That is simply not true. The $40 million resulted in a dozen convictions and even more indictments, including the conviction of a sitting state governor. Contrast that to the Iran/Contra probe that lasted 6 1/2 years, cost almost $50 million, and resulted in less than half as many indictments or convictions. And that investigation wasn't stonewalled at every turn - Reagan waived all privileges and had his entire staff and the secret service testify voluntarily. <<I don't mean to be disrespectful but with his tremendous resources he must have investigated these leads . Where have they led him? >> The real answer - we don't know. We won't know until Starr releases the information. My guess is that they don't lead strongly enough to Clinton, and Starr doesn't want to let go until they do. IMHO, he should release the information now, and if the leads point to someone other than Clinton, fine - let's deal with it and go on. My point about the various "gates" is that the Clinton administration is based on lies, intimidation and nepotism - it is not the most ethical administration this century as Clinton promised us. Should he be impeached? I still don't know.