|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brooke:
You haver verbalized what I was thinking. Very succinctly you have
summarized the objections to Starr by many of us.
The courts are not fair. I have been involved with the legal system, I'm
not a lawyer. Its very disapointing to see one side or the other favored by
a judge, depending on who contributed most to his election campaign. The
Federal judges who are appointed are largely much better than the state and
local judges who are elected, even though the senators in each state carry a
lot of weight on who is appointed. This is certainly an argument for fewer
elected officials not more of them.
Warm regards
Lionel
-----Original Message-----
From: Brookemail@xxxxxxx <Brookemail@xxxxxxx>
To: rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>I have the greatest respect for your opinion, Richard. You're not only
>knowledgeable on many subjects -- you're wise. You're absolutely right that
>the Metastock list is the wrong forum for political debate -- or
mud-slinging.
>However, after reading all the notes attacking Clinton on the basis of
Starr's
>lurid examination of his sex life, I felt compelled to speak out.
>
>I'm deeply troubled by the division in this country right now -- and by the
>Republicans' efforts to bring down a freely and fairly elected president.
>
>In a recent article in the New York Times, sociologist Orlando Patterson
says
>it well:
>
>"To the nonlawyer's mind, which holds the highest principle of justice to
be
>fariness, Mr. Starr's expedient pursuit of the Lewinsky sex matter after
three
>years in which he failed to find any wrongdoing by the President in the
>Whitewater episode smacks of precisely the kind of prosecutorial zealotry
that
>Hamilton most feared. If the personal life of the most powerful man in the
>nation can be violated so wantonly by a Government-appointed prosecutor,
then
>we are all at risk. ... Americans have traditionally trusted the courts to
>stand as the last barricade against intrusions of this kind. But now it
>appears that any determined opponent can use the legal system to invade our
>most intimate lives and that our prosecutors have almost limitless powers
to
>entrap us and to violate the most fundamental element of our freedom."
>
>And: "The public's correct understanding of democracy parallels its concern
>with the preservation of individual liberty. This explains why most
Americans
>still side with Mr. Clinton and against Mr. Starr. By objecting to
publication
>of details of the President's sex life, Americans have acknowledged that
his
>right to privacy justifies his attempt to conceal actions they consider to
be
>his business and no one else's. The disingenuousness of the President's
>legalistic definition of sex is justificed by the equally transparent
>disingenuousness of Mr. Starr's tactic of using Mr. Clinton's relationship
>with Monica Lewinsky as a way of trapping him in a falsehood."
>
>Now Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says any
efforts
>to expose members of Congress to the same scrutiny applied to Clinton's
>private life could lead to federal charges and imprisonment.
>
>This whole affair reminds one not of Watergate, but of McCarthyism.
>
>Brooke
>
>
|