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: mrknowitall who wrote (17990)12/9/1998 11:46:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
My, continuing our substantive debate as usual, eh, K? But, it was all so unknowable how anybody would vote on impeachment at election time. There's been so very much new evidence presented since then to clarify the process, hasn't there? It all became much clearer once the next election was safely in the distance, right? Want to explain that all again, Mr. Substantive Debate? Or would you prefer to bring up the Nazis again?



To: mrknowitall who wrote (17990)12/10/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
We have a despicable liar in the White House who, at the behest of his supporter's influence in the mainstream "news" media, has gotten a free pass on perjury at our expense.

That's more than a little absurd. Do you realize how many mainstream newspapers came out in favor of impeachment or resignation? Do you know how much the cable news networks stand to gain in ratings if this thing goes to the senate, i.e. what a vested interest they have in the impeachment process continuing? Maybe the fact that the media has backed off on Clinton had less to do with their "liberal" bias than with the fact that their readers and viewers defied the pundits and handed the Republicans a stinging defeat. (Yes, I know, the Republicans still hold majorities in the House and Senate). Your view of the media on the impeachment hearings is just wrong.

kind regards