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: Neocon who wrote (31321)	1/31/1999 8:57:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

But there's much more, Neocon. Filegate lives! Travelgate lives! Whitewater lives! Kathleen Willey lives, if Starr can just put the thumbscrews on Julie Steele to change her story. Remember Jim McDougal? I thought Starr was putting the screws on him in prison, where he met his untimely demise. But I was informed here that it was actually Clinton that offed him, because he had this secret book in the works that told all. First, he was offed in Arkansas prison, due to Clinton's connection, but then it turned out he died in federal prison, but it was still due to Clinton. And it turns out the book was actually published, it wasn't that secret, but Starr couldn't pursue any of the numerous accusations, because Jim was gone. And now Starr's up for provoking his own little constitutional crisis by pushing for an indictment. That's cool. If you checked out the other thread I pointed out, you'd find old DD was flogging the dreaded bloodgate back then. I don't read Drudge, except for what I stumble on here, but I'm sure if I did I could add another 15-50 allegations that will never die. Lord knows, nobody thinks much of Clinton personally. But my home state governor, sometimes mentioned as a Presidential possibility, has Clinton's women problem, in a somewhat more open fashion. And my home state is supposed to be squeaky clean, who knows what you'd find if you subjected the past governors of Mississippi or Louisiana to that kind of scrutiny. Sorry, I know this is cynical as hell, and it's good to be idealistic. But the whole Starr thing cuts both ways, and I'm extra cynical after the Porter/Marcus story. They had to plant the false Arkansas trooper story to get at the larger truth, right? I'll leave you with this old article from the "liberal" press that takes on both sides. I used to pull out the bit about "prosecutorial discretion" from time to time, but you can draw your own conclusions. nytimes.com Cheers, Dan.