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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (40087)	12/19/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB, I enjoy your WJC comments and share your feelings. Have a good weekend. Mike ho ho ho

To: Ilaine who wrote (40087)	12/19/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Coby, I just watched the Rose Garden presentation by the Clinton team. I must say it was skillfully crafted. Gephardt did the hardest hammering on the Republicans. Gore, needing to appear somewhat presidential in stature, was somewhat above the fray, but still got his punches in. Finally, Clinton, with much of the dirty work behind, was able to stake out a high road. I was somewhat moved by the event, even recognizing the crafting of the event. Still, I think lying under oath and coaching witnesses is illegal and should not go unpunished. I also note that is ironic to me that Democrats repeatedly refer to what Republicans did as partisan. Supposedly only Republicans that supported Clinton showed courage and voted their conscience. I would say that one's conscience might come down on either side of the issue depending on one's value system. And it is just as partisan of Democrats not to cross party lines if that is their sole reason for voting the way they did.

To: Ilaine who wrote (40087)	12/21/1998
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

"Clinton had the opportunity to read the Starr report after it was presented to Congress" ..and after it was made public, which as I recall, was about an hour after it reached Congress. He did not have a chance to read it before it was presented to Congress. This stands in contrast to the Rodino committee. "the opportunity to call and cross-examine the witnesses" Henry Hyde determined who the witnesses were. Ken Starr was the only witness of note. Neither Clinton nor the Democrats had a chance to call or cross-examine the other major witnesses because they didn't testify. Again in sharp contrast to the Rodino committee, where all the major witnesses testified. Now, am I wrong on my facts here? Did Clinton's lawyer have a chance to prepare a response before the Starr report was made public? Did Clinton's lawyer have a chance to call and cross-examine witnesses of his choice? I think not. The Republicans rammed an impeachment through a lame-duck Congress on purely partisan lines. Ironically, this was probably the only way to generate a really spirited partisan defense from the Democrats. But it will raise the public level of disgust with Congress (if that's still possible).