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: JBL who wrote (31544)	2/2/1999 9:15:00 AM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

JBL, Not surprisingly, I have a very different response. First, I view the Times Editorial section and its content as being separate and distinct from the newsroom. Impeaching yesterdays news story with today's editorial is, in my view, an exercise in getting all worked up about nothing. But, then, I admit that I never read the Editorials anyway. However, you wrote: << 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, [...]>> The Times Editorial reads: "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." First, the Times pins the witness issue on the House managers, not on Ken Starr as you imply. Second, whether the House managers wanted a witness list that can fairly be described as a parade of unnecessary witnesses is a totally different issue from whether there is a direct conflict on an essential point between two of the central witnesses - points that presumably will be cleared up when these two witnesses testify this week. You are, in my opinion, slightly off target and stretching things, to say the least. You wrote: <<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".....>> The Times Editorial reads: "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." I'm surprised you have such trouble with this mode of expression. Try to hear yourself saying something like, "What is needed here is not an investigation of Ken Starr's tactics, but attention to the substance of Bill Clinton's legal mischief." Again, I think you're off target and stretching. The Times editorial is just an expression of opinion; if you disagree with it, fine. I personally agree with the editorial that the real issue about Ken Starr's continuing role in these proceedings, if there is one, is Ken Starr's continuing role in these proceedings. JD

To: JBL who wrote (31544)	2/2/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

JBL, and it just happened to come out the same day that private investigators were found to have been hired by the Democratic leadership to hound Kathleen Wiley. Along with the blood money suit in Canada. How simple a puzzle can they lay out. The NY Times is now working for the White House. "An alleged report from an alleged source near the Starr team says the following" give me a break. Where did they learn that technique? In yellow liberal journalism 101? My 6 year old runs a school newsletter with more integrity than the NY Times editors have. But here is the real issue. Notice how EVERYONE ran with that same story all weekend. I mean EVERYONE in the mainstream press! No there's no bias in the news. Yeah, right! Give me the honesty of Drudge any day. Michael