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: jlallen who wrote (26950)1/11/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Which is the nutcake, JLA, you or Starr? Glad to see you consigning Scaife to that class without an argument.

selling out to the Chicoms, Travelgate, Filegate, etc., etc. even if there is not enough to convict such charges can hardly be called "groundless". JLA

But where is the evidence? Aside from what passes for "evidence" among legal scholars such as yourself. The incompetent Starr couldn't come up with anything. As for "selling out to the Chicoms", there's a long tradition of that too. There was a story in my local Sunday paper about Kissinger giving the dreaded Chicoms secret satellite data as an inducement before his precious China opening was public knowledge. As near as I can tell, Republican-leaning business interests have always been at the forefront of the kowtow crowd. George Bush was no wimp on that front either.



To: jlallen who wrote (26950)1/11/1999 1:17:00 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
etc., etc. even if there is not enough to convict

All of the etc. etc. charges turn out to be nothing unusual, certainly not malicious. Only the finest of hair splitting allows them to even be called a charge. After so many years and so many millions of dollars of investigation the only things that can be passed as a charge are those items entrapped by Starr.
TP