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 (30011)	1/26/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I'll say you skimmed it, brees, your reading comprehension seems quite limited here, to paraphrase JLA. Where did you get the "primarily a group of influential Democrats" out of that one? The two people who seemed to be at the center of this small circle of friends, Marcus and Porter, both were involved in legal work for Jones right from the start, apparently. Porter also apparently worked for/with Smith, who set up Brock with the Arkansas troopers, and paid the troopers for their stories. Brock was referred to Porter on the payment issue, remember (not, apparently)? Then Marcus apparently went off looking for some "straightforward litigators" to officially front the case. The Davis and Cammarata billing records show that from their earliest involvement in the case, they were consulting with Marcus and Porter. Conway also helped draft briefs, Cammarata said. (http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/012499jones-lawyers.html) If you want to call it "the collusion angle put together by the reporter", ok, that's your spin I'd say. It looks a lot more like what's normally called collaboration to me, if Marcus and Porter billed for their work. Now, if you want to believe the Neocon line on Paula Jones: 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. or 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. well, that's your choice. I'd say her being "enlisted" in the cause is much more likely. I'd say that claiming Paula Jones being interested in clearing her name is dubious, since it wasn't Clinton who besmirched her good name in the first place. I'd say claiming "the article stirred up old feelings" is one of the most monumental crocks I've read here, and I've read a lot. It's all in how you like your "truth and justice", though, I guess. Ethics and morality too, it's all in how you look at it.