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: jimpit who wrote (25386)	12/31/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Well, yes, that is an objective and unbiased statement. Many disagree, it seems. Enjoy spinning your story for the like minds around here, but don't get confused about how popular it is in general.

To: jimpit who wrote (25386)	1/1/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hey Jim, back to your original message, for entertainment's sake only: Daniel, lets get real, shall we? Consider the reputations of both principles (Starr and Clinton) and their respective teams and tactics. Do you honestly believe in your heart of hearts that the leaks were coming from Starr and his team ? Of course, on the last question, I'd guess most everybody would say yes, but I know that's weird. On the reputation thing, we have the "most admired" poll on the Grand Inquisitor: Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who conducted the investigation of Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, was most admired by 1 percent of the public, putting him in 13th place, tied with civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Norman Schwarzkopf, the general who led U.S. forces in the Gulf War. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mostadmired981231.html) Then, we have Anthony Lewis: It is often said that the President should not be above the law. But in this case he has been, and is, under disadvantages that would never be suffered by any ordinary citizen. No ordinary citizen would be hunted by a prosecutor with no limit of time or money -- one who, after failing to find reason to prosecute serious crimes after years of investigation, trapped him in an attempt to conceal wrongful consensual sex. No ordinary citizen who is a prosecutor's target would effectively be forced to testify to a grand jury despite the jeopardy of self-incrimination. No ordinary citizen would then be asked 81 questions that would put him in peril however he answered: guilty of perjury if he admitted past lies, guilty in the denials if he denied them. No ordinary citizen would face an indictment that made sweeping charges of perjury without identifying the supposedly perjurious statements, as is the case with the impeachment articles. And no ordinary citizen would face a prosecution reeking of ideological zealotry and a desire for vengeance. (http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/lewis/121598lewi.html) I apologize in advance for disturbing you with this evidence of all the weirdness out there. These stories are of course all "spin" from the biased liberal press, as opposed to the objective and impartial knowledge bestowed on us by the "Clinton/antichrist" crowd around here, along with Drudge, the Washington Times, and the WSJ editiorial page. Enjoy your moral superiority in the new year, all.