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: greenspirit who wrote (16067)	11/26/1998 5:27:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

A Law School Where Jesus Is the Ultimate Case Study nytimes.com I know, Michael, more liberal media. So biased compared to the Washington Times and local hero Drudge. But I like the Times for their irony, more subtle than I could ever manage here. No point in being subtle when people twist around whatever you say anyway. Some students also expressed irritation at what they called the cliched portrayals of Starr, Christian lawyers in general and Pepperdine in particular. After Starr announced his decision to become dean and to head a new public policy school, some of his critics called Pepperdine a haven for right-wing activists. Richard Mellon Scaife, a wealthy conservative who has contributed to many conservative causes, has given some $13 million to the 7,800-student Pepperdine University over the years. Scaife has not given money to the law school, but Pepperdine said a foundation associated with him gave $1.2 million of some $20 million in start-up costs for the public policy school. Many of the students and professors acknowledged that their own politics were politically conservative. But some of them complained that stereotypes have shaped the public view of Christian lawyers and of Starr, who has said he likes to start the day singing a hymn and offering a prayer. "There just seems to be this view that if you are a Christian, you think everybody else that's not just like you is wrong," said Chad Brown, a 25-year old law student who grew up in Texas. "That's just not it. That's not how the original man we named our religion after -- Jesus Christ -- was; he wasn't judgmental." We haven't seen any judgmental Christians around here, have we, Michael? No. This guy must have been quoted out of context. Speaking of Clarence Thomas, we have this cute little snippet: But at the school, the line between moral and political positions sometimes seemed to blur. In his constitutional law class, Kmiec questioned students about a series of cases just as professors do at secular law schools. But then he led the discussion toward what he called "natural law," which he and several of the students agreed was a force more powerful than the precedents of courts. Many conservatives say the natural law of God requires that abortion or assisted suicide should be outlawed no matter what the courts have said. Clarence Thomas is supposed to be big on "natural law". But at his confirmation hearings, he testified he'd never given a thought to Roe v. Wade. Never! It couldn't be that he lied about that, could it, Michael? Clinton will be gone in a couple years, after 8 years of continual hounding (by non-judgmental Christians of course) but Clarence Thomas will be sitting on the Supreme Court for another 30-40 years. Oh, but Clarence Thomas had a few weeks worth of "electronic lynching" to endure. But he was the best man for the job. George Bush said so, and he wouldn't lie, would he? Cheers, Dan.

To: greenspirit who wrote (16067)	11/26/1998 5:43:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Starr Speaks Out abcnews.com Not being much into TV, Michael, I had to wait for something to show up on the Web. From the bits here, it doesn't exactly look to me like Sawyer " trying her best to paint Ken Starr as a religios fanatic." She asked some questions, but you could just as well say she was giving him an opportunity to rebut the charge. This was On Linda Tripp's Contact With Paula Jones' Attorney: MS. SAWYER: Linda Tripp—Linda Tripp leaving your office and going home and talking to Paula Jones' attorneys that night, I mean, at the very least, is this control of your witness? MR. STARR: I think we could have had better control of her. MS. SAWYER: Should have? MR. STARR: Yeah. In fact, I think in retrospect, it would have been a better thing to have said — MS. SAWYER: You really had no idea that she was going — MR. STARR: My people did not. My people have assured me, and I credit this, that they had no indication whatsoever of any involvement. And let me look ahead because when it became known that then the Jones lawyers were very actively interested in this, we took steps to protect and preserve the integrity of our investigation. Given that you've gone on at length on Filegate, and how Clinton's obviously guilty there despite the lack of evidence, what do you make of this denial, Michael? Do you thing Starr has "plausible deniability" here? If Tripp hadn't gone to Jones' lawyers, he wouldn't have much of a case, would he? Cheers, Dan.