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: one_less who wrote (27051)	1/11/1999 5:09:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

LOL! Hilarious. He was probably the kid in shop who got nailed to the floor, next to Schuh!! Dipy was hanging from the coatrack!! hahahaha JLA

To: one_less who wrote (27051)	1/11/1999 5:17:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 67261

Hi brees. No, unlike you, I have a job I need to pay some attention to. But say hi for me to your freind butthead and all the other retired geezers at your rest home! Cheers, Chaz

To: one_less who wrote (27051)	1/11/1999 5:31:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Go for the Full Monty nytimes.com On the subject of the Senate trial, you might appreciate this one, dipy might too. I'm a bit dubious about the conclusion myself. A no-holds-barred trial, meanwhile, might actually be good for the country, especially if the new bipartisanship lasts past yesterday. Such a trial will not only uphold the much-talked-about but intermittently honored "constitutional process" and "rule of law" but might help resolve the unfinished 30-year-old culture war that has raged out of control since Mr. Clinton took office. The alternative -- a perfunctory show trial -- will only leave both sides at least as angry as they are now. So let Bob Barr, whose rage at Mr. Clinton led him to demand impeachment long before Monica and who sees this battle as "civil war," actually have his day in court rather than keep rattling sabers on TV talk shows. Let him and the 12 other House impeachment trial managers freely call all the Jane Does and alleged Clinton "love children" they want, because if their witnesses don't appear uncensored in the Senate, they'll pop up anyway in our tabloid system of shadow jurisprudence that spans from Drudge to Leno. Bring on Kathleen Willey and Dolly Kyle Browning, and, lest we forget Whitewater and those billing records, Hillary Clinton. Only the full judicial monty will allow us to take the complete measure of all the antagonists, to see the "character" and "values" of all those caught in a battle that, despite everyone's pious denials, has always been driven by sex and Americans' violently conflicting moral takes on it. Then let the senators sift through the evidence in rational, unhurried deliberations before coming to a legal conclusion about the President. Once that's done -- and whether the verdict is acquittal, removal or censure -- those of us watching will be free to conclude our own deliberations about the larger conflicts that preceded Mr. Clinton's arrival in the White House and transcend the question of how he will leave it. Having at last seen all the most damning "secret" evidence against the President, down to the last Internet rumor -- and, more important, having seen in detail the character of his accusers and defenders -- we'll be able to make our own most informed possible verdict when we vote, no doubt decisively, on which camp in this war will gain control of both the White House and Congress in a mere 22 months. Far from being a woeful burden on democracy, the trial of the President is a democratic gift that could end this bloody conflict peacefully. Otherwise our culture war might exceed Vietnam duration, as guerrillas from Richard Mellon Scaife to Larry Flynt fight on long after Bill Clinton, in one way or another, is gone. I think Mr. Rich's proposal is somewhat in line with my modest proposal for this past November's election, on which I had the most bizarre "substantive debate" imaginable with the dreaded K It was all so unknowable how anybody would vote before the election, as opposed to after the election, where with no new evidence the House voted on almost straight party lines. I don't quite think the Senate is really up for the Rich solution, but who can say?