On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:42:41 GMT, colyn.goodson@airmail.net (Colyn) wrote:
>On 20 Sep 1998 19:27:20 GMT, rschiller@worldnet.att.net (Rick
>Schiller) wrote:

>>"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
>>sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the
>>media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming
>>social value under the public's 'right to know'."
>>-- Kenneth Starr, 1987, "Sixty Minutes" interview with Dianne Sawyer.

>A bit off topic, but I'm going to respond anyway...
>The key words here are "publics right to know" since this is a
>criminal investigation, we the American people have a right to know
>that our President is abusing the highest office in the land... which
>means that ALL aspects of the investigation be made public.. If
>evidence is not presented, how can you prove criminal activity??

I think RS was trying to point out the hypocracy of releasing
K Starr's recent report to Congress to the public (including
the videoed grand jury testimony - that would almost certainly
not normally be publically released at all), and the irony of
K Starr having made the statement above, and then having become
the vehicle for doing exactly what he had condemned...
This whole thing is nuts, I think! Any president in out history
with a "special prosecutor" (with vast power) looking over his
shoulder constantly for four years would have been impeached!
So, this one dallied a bit with a dame (gosh, no one seems to
be placing any of the blame on her...! ;-), then tried to avoid
discovery. Big deal. Except that while trying to avoid discovery,
this president was maybe gotten by "gotcha" laws - ones where
the original act was not found to be a crime that could be
prosecuted, but the acts involved in concealing it are deemed
"crimes". (I suspect that these laws were designed to trap mob
figures in the past, as in, if you can't nail 'em for a real
crime, make one up that you *can* convict 'em on...!) Other
presidents had mistresses, lied about it (and a LOT worse!),
and the news media didn't grab onto it and wring it for all
its worth for months at a time! And they weren't attacked
constantly the way this president has been through virtually
his whole term of office, either. (If you think these attacks
are justified by any real acts of wrong doing, then you
may want to look into why Reagan was called the "Teflon
President"...;-) Personally, I think we have now one of
our greatest presidents, but, he is also human...;-)
I think he also has a rare and important grasp of
international affairs, and can be, if not overly distracted
by this current nonsense, an important influence on events
that will shape our future. What is happening in Russia, the
Middle East, Japan, China, etc., are important NOW, and what
doesn't get accomplished now to help direct events toward a
better outcome will be paid for most dearly in the future...