SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Zoltan! who wrote (4905)2/6/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Janice Shell  Respond to of 20981
 
Drudge said that it's all on Tripp's tapes.

So Goldberg and Tripp sold them to him, too? My, my, must be building up a pretty little nest egg. (As a lawyer, you must realize that if his "information" didn't come from them, it must have come from Starr's office, in which case the latter is in big trouble...)

I fail to see why a story about Betty Currie "hiding" in Bill's john should be on Tripp's tapes, though. Maybe the carpet thing--Monica WOULD enjoy telling that one--but I really don't see Currie explaining anything at all about her bathroom habits.

And we once again come back to the REAL point: Tripp's "knowledge", assumed by some to be "evidence", is entirely second-hand, furnished by the unreliable--hell, even her own attorney admits it--Monica.



To: Zoltan! who wrote (4905)2/6/1998 5:47:00 PM
From: Triluminary  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
General question for any lawyers or someone knowledgeable about the law. This is NOT an accusation. Just fishing. :)

Is it against the law for witnesses to discuss testimonies in an ongoing Grand Jury investigation regardless of the reason?

Would the answer change if it were for a criminal case vs. civil case or for some other circumstance?