Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)

[Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>]

At 09:50 AM 9/21/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote:

>Completely illogical. Give me one good reason not to lead with your best
>punch? I suspect Starr's work is voluminous but weak on all other counts
>so he led with what would create the most publicity. 

Starr did an Impeachment Referral with the stuff he had incontrovertible
proof of.  Proof is very difficult when dealing with someone like Clinton
and you don't want to do a Referral with insufficient proof.  Notice that
even with proof of multiple felonies the Clintonistas say that they aren't
important felonies.

>I've said that I'm
>no great fan of Clinton's but this entire investigation is blatantly
>partisan and has brought the political process in this country about as
>low as it is possible to bring it. 

The Special Counsel was appointed at the request of the President after 6
Democrat Senators called for it.  Republicans don't like Clinton but they
don't have to.  

>Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. 

He's just behaving in the way the Democrats designed the OIC to behave.  A
prosecutor on speed with no boss and no budget.  That was their intent.  US
Attorneys or local DAs would behave the same way if they had the cash.  Law
& Order Liberals like Clinton can hardly complain.  Better him than some
18-year-old drug lookout sentenced to 40 years or some accident-free drunk
driver sentenced to life (Texas recently).

>Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>for liberty not of their own definition.

Like Clinton, right?  I certainly like to see the damage to the Presidency.
 We also don't have to worry about any tobacco legislation for a few years.  

DCF

"We'll give you more than you deserve.  We'll give you Justice."