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: DMaA who wrote (30813)	1/29/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Plus is went longer and cost more and came up with far fewer convictions than Starr's investigation but somehow that was wise use of taxpayer dollars and Starr's investigation is a taxpayer boondogle.>> Obviously, the Iran-Contra investigation left a lot to be desired. For instance, we know what some of the Iran-contra players testified to publicly in hearings and depositions, but do we have taped conversations of them talking candidly on the phone with their "friends"? Did the Congress really explore every possible threat to Oliver North's liberty and that of his family and friends, or did they just weakly hand over immunity on the flimsy basis that their primary concern was to get at the truth? Did Walsh make any attempt to investigate allegations made against Reagan during his tenure as Governor of Calif.? Were the lawyers serving as White House counsel in the Reagan WH compelled to testify before a Grand Jury about their conversations with Reagan? Was the death of William Casey thoroughly investigated? Clearly, Walsh's investigation doesn't even compare. (However, in fairness to Walsh and others, we learn as we go along and standards evolve. I think it's fair to assume that the Iran-contra investigation would not be conducted in the same way today.)