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: jimpit who wrote (31395)	2/1/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

jimpit, <<BTW, the NYT story is sounding more and more like a Slick "plant".>> Funny you should mention this. I thought it was odd to see the usual anti-Clinton crowd posting that story with such enthusiasm yesterday. The story didn't seem to me to reflect very well on the self-important prosecutor (but, then, very little does). Anyway, what part of the story sounds like a plant to you, or do you believe the entire story is a fabrication? What part of the story rings false to you?

To: jimpit who wrote (31395)	2/1/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Constitution Does Not Favor or Forbid Charges Against President, Experts Say nytimes.com I thought you'd enjoy this one, jimpit, at least the second paragraph. Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel, will be moving into uncharted waters if he decides to bring a criminal case against President Clinton before the President leaves office. [The President's personal attorney, David Kendall, said he was taking legal action against Starr concerning a weekend story in The New York Times saying the independent counsel had concluded that a grand jury could indict Clinton while he was still in office. Kendall accused Starr of violating grand jury secrecy rules.] On the question of whether a sitting President can be subject to criminal prosecution, the Constitution's text is ambiguous, the evidence of the framers' original intent is equivocal and the Supreme Court, in inviting briefs but not deciding the issue in the case of the Nixon tapes 25 years ago, has remained silent. So if Starr does decide to charge the President with perjury or obstruction of justice, charges that are the foundation of the articles of impeachment now before the Senate, he may not get a conviction but he could very well bring about the definitive resolution of this elusive issue. Although Starr's advisers have reportedly told him there are no constitutional barriers in the way, this is not the majority view. Most legal scholars and historians believe that the President, alone among all the "civil officers" subject to impeachment, cannot be prosecuted until he is no longer in office, either through the expiration of his term or following automatic removal after conviction by the Senate. WH plant or the usual Starr leak of "secret" grand jury material- who can say? My recollection was that this summer, when Brill's Content covered the issue, Starr was quite Clintonesque in his response about where the leaks were coming from. After the (quite clear) evidence that the original American Spectator Arkansas trooper story, which allegedly lead to stirring up "old feelings" in Paula Jones and thus the suit, was a plant of (false , if you believe Jones) information by the same people who found Jones her "simple litigator" lawyers, and later set up Starr with Linda Tripp, why should I care? If you're going to play politics by other means, you don't get to whine about the other side playing the same games. Aside from the fact that you have no evidence that the NYT story was a plant. As John Dickson replied to you, everybody here was trumpeting this as the next great Drudge "story of the year" and death to Clinton deal. Now, suddenly, a couple days later, it's all a WH setup. Make up your mind, guys. Of course, when you're a true blue Clinton hater, all is allowable in search of a greater "Truth".