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: mrknowitall who wrote (8427)	10/9/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What "precedents" were set in any of the historical dodges you keep bringing up that have any legal bearing on the Clinton matter? Why is it a "historical dodge" to compare the current proceedings with what has gone before? They were all legal proceedings, of a sort. What else might we measure the current action against? The alleged Clinton misconduct presented so far seems pretty minor compared to both Watergate and Iran / Contra, both in original misdeeds and in subsequent coverup / obstruction of justice /conspiracy / whatever other kitchen sink du jour is being thrown in now. Impeachment proceedings, Special Prosecutors, coverups, obstruction of justice, all that jazz. There's no formal legal precedent, of course. But, whatever coverup there was on bimbogate, it seems pretty inconsequential compared to Watergate and Iran/Contra. What more is there to know about Bimbogate? How long did the coverup last? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, the most they could ever bring themselves to say was "mistakes were made", or some such. Or are you going to join the chorus in lecturing on Clinton's uniquely reprehensible and corrupt conduct? Is the House investigation going to dig up new dirt that Starr couldn't get to in 4+ years?