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: Jack Be Quick who wrote (31541)	2/2/1999 3:18:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

John, Concerning Starr, it is indeed likely that he is considering indicting Clinton while still in office. However, why in hell would he "leak" the information to the New York Times, his worst critic, on the eve of witness testimony, rather than just make a press release ? After all the "leaking" this guy has been accused of, what exactly does he have to gain by "leaking" rather than just telling it staight in a press release. IMHO, the information from the NYT, which is a perfectly legitimate subject to talk about in the first place, has been gathered over a period of time, and is now delivered packaged as a leak by the NYT in order to create a controversy. I have no doubt whatsoever at this point that there is collusion between the NYT and the White House, and that Blumenthal and "journalists" from the NYT are involved. We shall know soon enough if Starr is the corrupt manipulator and leaker, or if Blumenthal gets the title. My money is on Ken Starr to be the innocent one. Daniel thinks I'm nuts, but we'll see. In any case, thank you for indicating that you are keeping an open mind on the subject. Regards.

To: Jack Be Quick who wrote (31541)	2/2/1999 4:02:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

John , If you had any doubt about what i just said, look at the editorial in the NYT today, entitled "Ken Starr's Meddling" where they have the nerve to mention "the issue of who leaked the news to the NYT is a phony one"..... So the NYT invents a leak, times it, and crucifies Starr for the whole episode. Now that is first class journalism. Also please note the mentioning of the "unecessary witnesses".... Never mind that Jordan's and Lewinsky's testimony are in direct conflict on several key points, such aa wether Jordan ever saw Lewinsky's affidavit before it was submitted, or wether they had a breakfast at the Hyatt in December, wich Jordan categorically denies, and Lewinsky confirms. Again, why should we make fun at Drudge, rather than at those con artists who call themselves journalists. These guys should be tarred and feathered, and I'm quite certain history will take care of that. The New York Times February 2, 1999 Editorial Ken Starr's Meddling The most surprising aspect of the Senate impeachment trial is the persistent challenges to the senators' constitutional right to run it. First came the House managers' attempt to call a parade of unnecessary witnesses. Now we have an apparent effort from the office of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to spark a debate over criminal prosecution of the President at a time when the Senate deserves a calm decision-making atmosphere and an open field for negotiation. Mr. Starr is already regarded by his critics as an obsessive personality. Now he seems determined to write himself into the history books as a narcissistic legal crank. Once the Senate started the second Presidential impeachment trial in American history, that was Mr. Starr's cue not only to shut up but to stop any activity by his office that would direct attention away from the Senate or reduce its bargaining room. The issue of who leaked news of Mr. Starr's indictment research to The New York Times is a phony one. What is needed here is not an investigation of journalistic sources, but attention to the substance of Mr.Starr's legal mischief. It seems designed to disrupt these solemn deliberations into Presidential misconduct of a serious if undeniably sordid kind. The news article highlighted an underlying problem. Mr. Starr keeps flapping around -- with deliberations over indictments and by meddling in the House managers' contacts with Monica Lewinsky -- in ways that complicate Senate work that is more important than he is. The Senate should rebuke Mr. Starr and also appeal to the Federal judges who supervise him to restrain him from further disturbance of the constitutional process. This incident is more serious than Mr. Starr's customary blundering. The Constitution clearly allows the indictment and prosecution of officials who have been impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. But whether such a trial should go forward in this case is a complex constitutional and civic question that needs to be shaped by the wisdom of the Senate rather than by Mr. Starr's personal inclinations and his idea of prosecutorial duty. If the three witnesses being deposed this week do not dramatically change the evidence, then the Senate is clearly the right place to make the final disposition of President Clinton's case. For Mr. Starr's office to be talking about a trial inhibits the Senate's freedom to draft a censure resolution that might include some kind of Presidential admission. Indeed, virtually everyone in the capital except Mr. Starr seems to know that censure-plus-admission, speedily arrived at, would be a far better outcome for the country than a trial for either a sitting or former President. To be sure, if the charges were of greater criminal magnitude or threatened orderly government, such a trial could be fitting and constitutional once a President was removed. While removal is not appropriate in this case, the Senate is clearly the appropriate venue for condemning and finding a proportional punishment to offenses like those committed by Mr. Clinton. The Senate, which is always talking about its potent collective probity, needs to find a way to slap Mr. Starr back into line.