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: Bill who wrote (32972)	2/9/1999 2:19:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

lame duck One must know how to look beyond the duck disguise. Why do you suppose that the House republicans, when they tried to sponser a censure motion, insisted that it contain a prohibition against Clinton campaigning? This duck can do more than quack! TP

To: Bill who wrote (32972)	2/9/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

Scout leader quits over Clinton affair GRAND JUNCTION, Colo., Feb. 9 (UPI S) _ A Colorado Boy Scout leader is (Tuesday) quitting the organization and has turned in all his scouting awards because the scouts have refused to revoke a character award given to President Clinton. Gerry Brewer _ also past president of the Mesa County Republican Party _ says the scouts' refusal to take back the Silver Buffalo Award sparked his decision to return all of his awards and begin a letter-writing campaign to gather oppotition to the Boy Scouts as a group.

To: Bill who wrote (32972)	2/9/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

IS CLINTON SET TO FIRE STARR? By DICK MORRIS REMEMBER the Saturday Night Massacre of 1973 - when President Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox as Watergate closed more tightly around him? Could there be another Saturday Night Massacre looming after the Senate adjourns, having acquitted the president and ending the impeachment inquiry? Legally, Clinton's attorney general, the compliant Janet Reno, has the power to get rid of Starr for "good cause" any time she wants. Could Clinton lawyer David Kendell's relentless harping on supposed leaks from Starr's office be a setup to give Reno the "good cause" she needs to show Starr the door? The Justice Department is now investigating whether Starr's people violated Monica Lewinsky's rights in allegedly questioning her while discouraging her from calling an attorney. Could this inquiry be a setup to generate the "cause" needed to remove Kenneth Starr? Until now, while Starr's dismissal has been the president's fondest dream, Reno has been unable to fire him because the politics made it impossible. But as Starr's popularity slips and the public clamor for an end to the scandal investigations mounts, what was unthinkable a few months ago becomes much more realistic. Indeed, public-opinion polls would probably back Starr's ouster even if it takes place by Clinton's hand. Why would Clinton want to kick Starr out and take the political heat? Because all kinds of signs point to the likelihood that the independent counsel will not give up once the Senate acquits Clinton, but will plod on relentlessly - if maddeningly slowly - until he has cornered his quarry. The public's patience with Starr may be exhausted and the House may not want to give impeachment another go, but the prosecutorial process grinds on to its own beat and its own momentum without caring much about the public's appetite or lack of it. The depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sydney Blumenthal may seem to be the final evidence in the final adjudication of the Clinton scandals to the public, but to Starr and his prosecutors they are just three more depositions which open new doors for scrutiny. White House aide Blumenthal, caught in a perjury trap during his Senate deposition, will likely be the next victim in Starr's sights. Since Blumenthal's apparently demented attorney "released" reporters from any obligation to confidentiality in their dealings with his client, journalists have been lining up to finger Blumenthal as the source of their anti-Lewinsky stories. This, of course, directly contradicts Sidney's assertion, under oath and on videotape, that he has "no idea" where these leaks came from. The stupidity and audacity of Blumenthal's counsel in releasing reporters from their vows of silence reminds one of Gary Hart's 1984 challenge to journalists to follow him around and search for evidence of sexual infidelity (which led them straight to Hart's mistress, Donna Rice). Know this: If Sidney Blumenthal faces an indictment for perjury, he will cooperate with Starr to get out of it. He's now Webb Hubbell. His relationship with Clinton is strictly this year's "gig," not a lifelong partnership. Will Blumenthal lead Starr to other examples of the White House savaging potential witnesses? Will he begin to unravel the secret police? Starr's guns may also turn on Vernon Jordan - before a Virginia grand jury. Jordan's inability to recall having breakfast with the president's mistress on New Year's Eve when questioned about it several months later is hardly credible. In addition, the House managers have built up a very good case against Jordan for obstruction of justice based on Lewinsky's convincing testimony that he told her to destroy her love letters to Clinton before Paula Jones' lawyers could find them and use them as evidence. Starr is also leaning hard on Webb Hubbell and his vulnerable wife Suzanne in the hopes that they will crack and provide evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the president and/or the First Lady in the Whitewater affair. Lewinsky's unambiguous testimony that Betty Currie initiated the gift giveback makes Clinton's secretary's testimony much less credible. Starr likely realizes by now that he was mistaken in not leaning harder on Currie. He might make up for this mistake in the future. Finally, who knows when Starr might take it into his head (if he hasn't already) to return a sealed indictment of the president or of the First Lady to be tried after they leave the White House? Remember that Hubbell's indictment mentions the Rose Law Firm "billing partner" (Hillary Clinton) more than 30 times. Clinton may figure it is much better to be rid of Starr and take the hit now rather than let him stick around to do the president more damage. Right after the impeachment fails may be the only time Clinton can undo the biggest mistake of his administration - letting a special prosecutor appear on his horizon. And Clinton rarely makes the same mistake twice. Janet Reno, who seems to have surrendered any capacity for independent judgment once Clinton let her stay as attorney general for his second term, would likely do the president's bidding if he asked her to fire Starr. Of course David Kendall would have to document his charges that Starr leaks and the investigation of Starr's treatment of Lewinsky would have to proceed to provide the "cause" Reno needs, but likely both processes are now well along. Scandal groupies beware! The ax may be about to fall!