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: JBL who wrote (17804)	12/8/1998 10:41:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

JBL - Don't hold your breath - you haven't been around the "inimitable" Daniel long enough - you'll have to wait until the WH distributes its position/spin and the various Dem support media outlets customize and schedule it for consumption. Sorry, Daniel - I'm back!! Mr. K.

To: JBL who wrote (17804)	12/8/1998 11:34:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Who is Ruth? And why should I care? Nobody much likes Clinton, within the Democratic party, or without. But with Congress on a perpetual 3-day work week to make sure everybody has time to go begging for money for the next election, I think there are plenty of sources of corruption. Here's an unnamed (apparent) Republican expressing my viewpoint. "I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it." (from nytimes.com Personally, I thought the impeachment issue should have been more directly addressed in the Nov. election. You'll have to ask K about how unknowable it all was for the candidates, about how they would vote on the issue. He also raised the issue of all the new evidence that was going to come out of Hyde's committee. It's all a joke, really.