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.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (3535)	1/29/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: billwot	Respond to of 20981

Thread- "No Excite-ment at White House By Maria Seminerio January 29, 1998 3:53 PM PST ZDNN This kind of publicity money can't buy. An ad campaign touting the personalization options on Excite Inc.'s Web site by taking a satirical look at what President Clinton's favorite hobbies might be drew the ire of White House lawyers, who sent an angry letter to the company's CEO earlier this month. But the letter -- protesting the ad's use of an image of Clinton's signature on a list of pastimes including "white-water rafting" and "buying lingerie for that special someone" -- didn't cause much fuss until someone leaked it to the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday (the story appeared Thursday), in the wake of the current controversy over Clinton's alleged philandering." Complete article at: zdnet.com billwot

To: jhild who wrote (3535)	1/29/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

My understanding is that the judge allowed the case to go forward and depositions to continue, but with some restrictions, though exactly what I am uncertain. But what exactly does this mean? If the Lewinsky material is to be--on the judge's (NOT Starr's) ruling--excluded from the Jones case, then are Clinton's and Lewinsky's depositions to be considered null and void? And so are they then--since their quondam testimony won't ever be entered in a court of law (or so I assume, as the evidence was gathered specifically for the Jones case)--off the hook as far as perjury charges are concerned? Sounds to me as if something's gone rather badly wrong for the Jones-Lewinsky partisans. Lawyers out there? Opinions?