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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (16406)	1/22/1998 10:57:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Then she should stick to her story and discredit the Tripp tapes. These guys will really screw her if she cracks.

To: Grainne who wrote (16406)	1/23/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

She felt her civil service job was in danger, and was trying to protect herself, and that's all I know for sure. That's what she says, but it doesn't make much sense. The best way to "protect yourself" in situations like these is to keep your head down and your mouth shut. As noted previously, she should either have told Lewinsky she didn't want to hear about her affair, or, if she insisted on listening, should later have said she had no direct knowledge of the president's sexual activities. Simple. There's gotta be more to it. Sure, Starr can force Lewinsky to testify. But he can't force her actually to SAY anything. If I were her lawyer I think I'd tell her to stonewall, even if it makes her look silly. She should just use that old Watergate chestnut: I have no independent recollection... Of ANYTHING. Of whether she believes she had an affair with Clinton, of whether she told Tripp anything, of whether, if she did tell Tripp anything, it was the truth... Amnesia would work.