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 (32436)	2/6/1999 3:20:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

It doesn't matter is one point of view. Another point of view is that the Jones lawsuit was politics as a blood sport from the very beginning. It's all a bit murky for me to make an unambiguous moral judgement on the matter. But then, I have this mistaken notion that Clinton's just this guy, you know? No saint, but not the antichrist either. Let's narrow it down to just one lawyer, Neocon. Porter. Law partner of Starr. He assisted planting the Arkansas trooper in the American Spectator. He was there behind the scenes with Jones' attorneys of record from the very beginning. Starr talked with Davis, but certainly had no contact with Porter, his law partner, right? When the time came to officially take Tripp to Starr, Porter had to go through Rosenzweig, for the sake of appearances if nothing else. Goldberg called Porter for advise on how to approach Starr, as if Porter, working behind the scenes with Jones' lawyers all along, needed to be told about Tripp. Although the billing records show communication between Porter and the Jones lawyers from 1994 to 1997, he denied in a written statement last fall doing legal work for Ms. Jones. Because Porter is a partner at the firm where Starr worked until he took a leave of absence last August, any role played by Porter in the Jones case could have posed a conflict of interest for Starr once he became independent counsel. Starr has said he did not discuss the Jones case with Porter. Starr discussed the case with Davis, but not partner Porter, who had a much closer association with Davis and Cammarata. Starr would have no reason to dissemble on that one, would he? Yes, Starr kept up his law practice, unlike previous ICs, but he never talked to his law partners. Then, there's the fact that the obstruction evidence has been examined in excruciating detail over the past year, but all I got is this one NYT story. The NYT story seems a lot clearer than all the picking and choosing Starr and the House had to do to make their obstruction case. You got to believe Lewinsky when Starr tells you to, and ignore her when he tells you not to believe her, right? The Times story did seem to have some good sources, though, with Brock and Cammarata attributed. I wish the Senate had gone full bore with witnesses, because it sure would have been fun to hear Porter explain this all.

To: Neocon who wrote (32436)	2/6/1999 3:31:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

As I've said, Daniel, on the same basis that you draw conclusions about the lawyers, I have an open-and-shut obstruction case against Clinton. No need for a trial, let's throw the book at him. P.S. The book already has been thrown at Clinton, and all that's happened to Porter and Co. is that they got a story in the NYT, that all their friends will airily dismiss as coming from the "biased liberal press". Nobody's talking about any charges at all, as nobody's said it was criminal. Ethical is another matter. Very interesting never the less, I imagine the stupid 2/3 would find the story much more interesting that the latest from Drudge that's always a hot topic around here.