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: j g cordes who wrote (29578)	1/24/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Actually, Paula decided to come forward after an allusion to the incident in David Brock's original article on Clinton's abuse of office and reckless behavior in Little Rock. She was not enlisted. Her original attorneys were straightforward litigators. It was only after it became too expensive to support the suit that conservative groups stepped in. If you believe that Clinton probably did what was charged, why insist that it was only political? And if there were merit to her suit, who cares why she was helped? Would the prospect of splitting a huge settlement be a better motivation for an attorney then the conviction that Clinton gets away with too much, and must be brought to account? As for overturning the people's choice: Less then 75% of eligible adults register to vote. About 50% of registered voters participated in the '96 election. Less than 50% of those who voted chose Clinton. By the rules of our system, Clinton wins, but it is excessive to claim a popular mandate. And, as I have elsewhere noted, he would be succeeded by Al Gore, also a Democrat, not his enemies.