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: greenspirit who wrote (16417)	1/22/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 108807

Hi Michael, I agree with you on just telling the truth.. its simpler and so much less paperwork... hey I just realized everyone must be watching the evening news and I'm posting all alone. The mediums the message! Have a good night all. JGC

To: greenspirit who wrote (16417)	1/22/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

In an ideal world, I would agree with you. But this is Washington and they eat people who tell the truth for lunch. There is a sharp divide between what is moral and what is legal. I think you are confusing the two issues. This young women should not be forced to disclose personal sexual information to a bunch of politically motivated hyennas. I do not think she should sacrifice herself for Starr and this matter is not a threat to the republic. They have already created a media circus by leaking the matter before a proper investigation. She needs a very skillful attorney. She is under no moral obligation to tell the "truth". She may be under a legal obligation to tell the "truth". From a legal standpoint, she needs to be very careful. But there is no moral obligation to kiss and tell. She does not have to take the oath. The attorney's and the judge do not swear to tell the truth. Are they going to throw her into jail for not taking the oath?