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: Bill who wrote (27208)	1/12/1999 11:46:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Managers Offer the Details of the Case Against Clinton nytimes.com Thank you for the usual innuendo in lieu of evidence, Bill. You can suppose whatever you want, and your supposition here is about what I'd expect. Starr presented a lot of evidence on cigars, but on the more central issue of obstruction, it's all a bit circumstantial. Rep. Henry Hyde and the 12 other impeachment managers on Monday presented a road map of the case for removing President Clinton that they plan to make to the Senate beginning on Thursday. The 105-page document, with 250 pages of supporting evidence, offers a highly circumstantial case that relies on persuading senators that a chain of events, read in its entirety, demonstrates a compelling argument for the president's ouster. Each senator will receive a loose-leaf binder containing the material. . . . Clinton, the House managers said, obstructed justice in these ways: -- Trying to influence the testimony of his secretary, Betty Currie; -- Providing several of his top aides with "elaborate lies" about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; -- Orchestrating a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky to undercut her credibility, and -- Using the power of the presidency to help get Ms. Lewinsky a job in New York. In dismissing a frequent defense raised by the White House that Ms. Lewinsky testified that no one told her to lie or bought her silence, the House managers argue that her words are not exculpatory if they are viewed in context along with a skein of events. "Of course no one said, 'Now Monica, you go in there and lie,"' the document read. "They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Similary, nobody promised her a job, but once she signed the false affidavit she got one." Sounds pretty circumstantial to me. All you got to do is believe in the overarching Clinton conspiracy to destroy our moral fiber. I know, this is all from the "liberal press" versus your favorite "objective" sources, Drudge and the Washington Times. But where's the evidence? Most of the cast of characters in the various Clinton escapades are known liars. David Hale, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Monica Lewinsky, and so on. Then there's Linda Tripp. Take Linda Tripp, please. What gives Starr the right to bend all these stories to fit his version of the "truth"? It's a mess, and who knows what the real story is? Certainly not you, with your well known "Clinton-anti-Christ" perspective.