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: Hippieslayer who wrote (4819)	2/6/1998 12:26:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

NightLine just spent the whole show going over the Currie story. abcnews.com Donaldson says that Clinton has a PR news conference with Tony Blair tomorrow which they cannot cancel. He expects Clinton will continue to stonewall, i.e., to avoid telling the truth but rather to continue issuing denials. Last night someone asked me why Starr rejected immunity for Monica and I said he seems to be confident that he can build the case against Clinton without her. exchange2000.com Now Starr appears very confident.

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (4819)	2/6/1998 8:58:00 AM
From: Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Hi, I wonder if any of the Clinton detractors can make an accusation without the word " IF ", in the sentence. You suggest an apology for those you disbelieve Tripp, are you also going to suggest those who bashed Clinton do the same, if nothing proves conclusive? Personally, I'm not so sure Tripp was lying, but rather, was Lewinsky truthful when she said the things she did in confidence to her? There could be 101 reasons for Lewinsky to fabricate nonsense in what she thought was a personal and confidential conversations with a co-worker. My opinion is there is no immunity for Monica, because Starr isn't so sure that she has any conclusive damaging info. If Starr's case was as strong as some suggest and ML could bolster that case, I'd be amazed if he did not jump all over that. I'd guess he'd give immunity to a pion to get the big fish in a NY minute!. Still doesn't add up to the truly objective. Still the only "facts?", are, he said, she said, that she said! Oh, and unnamed sources, I forgot about them. Then there is everybodies interpretatation of leaks, which seems to be accepted as evidence under oath? Remember that is a pretty big word.....IF.......When making an alligation see IF we can leave that word out...... Frank