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: John Lacelle who wrote (29245)	1/22/1999 3:32:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You seem to be an admirer of the "integrity" of the Starr Inquisition. So strange how all that "secret" grand jury testimony made it to Drudge so quickly. Of course, somebody here explained that it was all Clinton's doing, or something like that. Not to mention the "integrity" of the conservative funded and directed Jones suit, and the actions of "American hero" and friend in need Linda Tripp. Whatever. The thing to recall about Nixon is that regardless of how you judge the severity of Watergate, by all indications Nixon's political support had evaporated by the time he resigned. Among the electorate as well as Congress. It would be difficult indeed to claim a parallel situation here, but I'm sure it will be claimed anyway. You know in your heart what's right. Good for you. I'm all for the Republicans making a stand on principle, if that's what they think they're doing. Write your Senators.

To: John Lacelle who wrote (29245)	1/22/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

However, just as Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden faced the daunting task of convincing a mostly Black jury that O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder, the Republicans face the same task of convincing a confused public, ... A little more condescension, please! ;-) If you had bothered to take a closer look at the polls, people are not exactly approving Clinton's behavior. However, they do feel that it is not serious enough to merit sacking him. And they have been steadfastly saying this for almost a full year now. "Confused public", eh? And FYI, constitutional experts said essentially the same thing, but in legalese: "The President's actions do not rise to the level of impeachment". The only task the Republicans have to face now is that of kicking one another for carrying this too far and dragging this for so long! Happy kicking! ;-) <G>