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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1195)	1/4/1999 12:39:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Starr is a disgrace and an embarassment to the judicial system. He claims impartiality and then acted as a shill for the Republicans. He duped Reno into allowing him to expand the investigation by withholding information about his involvement with Tripp, Goldberg and Paula Jones lawyers. Moreover, he apparently attempted to setup a sexual sting operation on the president by attempting to get ML to wear a wire to one of her trysts. He aided and abetted the Tripp and Goldberg conspiracy against Clinton. But hey " the means justifies the ends" when your a right wing religious political zealot.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1195)	1/4/1999 11:01:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

You can call it a big deal if you want. Many have some problem with using tactics usually reserved for organized crime bosses and drug kingpins in a political vendetta. And yes, you don't have to come back with the "Clinton is Capone" argument, heard it all before. In response: Many criminal lawyers think the President's statements would not support a prosecution for perjury. Two Republican and two Democratic prosecutors told the Judiciary Committee that the prospects were too dim even to launch a prosecution. But if the President now admitted a knowing falsehood, that admission would probably be admissible in evidence against him if in future he is prosecuted for perjury. And I think Kenneth Starr will bring such a prosecution -- staying in office until after Jan. 20, 2001, if necessary. . . . 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)