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 (29967)	1/26/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

brees? On the issue of "White House spin", perhaps you could comment on the recent reporting about the background of the Jones suit,in nytimes.com Would you like to help Neocon explain about Paula Jones' stirring memories, induced by the Brock American Spectator story? Do you believe Neocon's assertions, 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. and A: The article stirred up old feelings; B: The trooper was under the impression that she had "done" Clinton; C: Little Rock is a small place, and enough information was given that some of her acquaintances could have figured it out. I find his pronouncements about the "integrity" of the whole matter somewhat questionable, as I posted in www2.techstocks.com . He seems to think I find the behind the scenes lawyers "guilty" of something, besides the normal politics by other means I guess. Brock himself is not proud of his role in this whole sordid affair, according to the NYT, 3/11/98: Clinton Accepts Apology From Maker of First Sex Life Inquiry It was a brief and mild statement that underscored but left unspoken a thousand could-have-beens about the Clinton presidency. With one sentence passed on by a spokesman, President Clinton on Tuesday accepted the apology of the man who wrote the article that mentioned the woman named Paula, who hired the lawyers, who filed the subpoenas that led to Monica Lewinsky, whose relationship to Clinton now threatens his presidency. Clinton was responding Tuesday to an article by David Brock expressing mournful regret for starting that chain reaction with an investigation of Clinton's sex life. "The president read the article," said Jim Kennedy, a White House spokesman, "and he appreciates and accepts Brock's apology." He left unaddressed the possibilities of a Paula-Jones-less presidency. In a December 1993 article in the American Spectator, Brock in passing mentioned a woman who he said was "remembered only as Paula" -- but who came to be remembered as so much more. In an article examining Clinton's sex life when he was governor of Arkansas, Brock said the woman named Paula had had an encounter with Clinton and then volunteered to be his girfriend. After the article appeared, Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state clerk, identified herself as the woman, said that she had rejected an advance by Clinton, and declared that she would clear her name. Clinton denied the account and refused to apologize. The rest is still becoming history -- a fact, Brock said, that has become deeply troubling to him. "It's really bizarre," he said Tuesday. "I think I made a major misjudgment, in retrospect." In addition to forswearing his investigation, Brock said he should have omitted the name Paula. In his article this week, published in Esquire, Brock addressed the president as he wrote: "As the first reporter who leered into your sex life, I do know that I didn't learn a damn thing worth knowing about your character." If you want to explain how a (hypothetical) impeachment conviction will make this all better, be my guest. Regardless of what I think of Clinton, I'd see a conviction as a validation of this peculiarly distasteful form of politics by other means. How could it be otherwise?