SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Machaon who wrote (8470)10/9/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
>>Why is this so confusing to our conservative friends<<

>>Conducting a witch hunt<<

Now let's see, what happens when Starr presents any additional referrals in the interim? Do we put it on hold until we finish the first referral? Do you seriously believe that should or would happen. No, quite obviously the Clinton supporters want to limit the inquiry to the Lewinsky Affair because they want to preclude any further evidence submission into the procedure. Hyde has simply said that the scope of the inquiry should be flexible enough to allow for any future referrals. bp



To: Machaon who wrote (8470)10/9/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: j_b  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
<< The fact that the House wants to extend it past the Starr investigation indicates clearly that they are conducting a witch hunt.>>

I disagree. Personally, I think it is nothing more than a reflex action forestalling any legalistic attempt by the Democrats to artificially limit the scope. In other words, they don't know WHAT the Democrats will try, but they know they'll try something. Better make the scope as open as possible to give us room.

Another interpretation would be that they don't trust Starr to have actually tried to do an impartial or complete investigation. As you found and reported in an earlier post, there is a definite lack of trust between Starr and the Republicans.