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: DD™ who wrote (31791)	2/3/1999 12:34:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

As Daniel will likely point out, you cannot prove that Starr's office did not leak, it has been charged that Starr's office leaked, ergo Starr's office leaked, because that's just the kind of people who are running this show anyway. Of course, on the basis of the kind of proof Daniel has so far used to show what kind of people are running this show, I have an open and shut case that the President obstructed justice. It certainly looks fishy, therefore it is fishy, therefore throw the bum out. Now, Daniel might object that nothing alleged rises to the level of removal, which is a different kettle of fish (pardon the expression). But whether or not it is worth removal is a complex judgment, since the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is deliberately vague. I would say that the recklessness with which he pursued his affair constituted a "misdemeanor" in the required sense, but it is not an article of impeachment. Others may differ. But it is certainly worth debate.

To: DD™ who wrote (31791)	2/3/1999 4:22:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

I'm supposed to take your word for that? Truly objective source that you are? For God's sake, indeed. So, Starr leaked to the WH, who then leaked to the NYT? Starr didn't exactly deny contemplating indictment, you know. As for dirty tricks, want to take on the history of the Paula Jones suit? Where poor Paula just had to clear her name from the slurs in the article planted by Smith and Porter?