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: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (4933)	2/6/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

holly, do believe in the legal system of this country or not? That's a big problem in this country. We think everyone is exempt from the rule of law as long as it is convenient to them. There is a simple truth here holly. Either the President had an affair and he lyed, or he didn't. Either he tried to obstruct justice by telling others to lye under oath, or he didn't. In our country the courtroom is the place which determines this. The potential accuracy of the courtroom decision makers is directly related to the accumulation of information. The secretaries information is directly relevant. If it's related to the case it should be allowed. Simple. Michael

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (4933)	2/6/1998 7:50:00 PM
From: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9	Respond to of 20981

Holly A secretary is necessarily privy to more sensitive personal information than would even a person's physician or attorney. The secretary literally is an extension of the employer. With that in mind, to go after Clinton's personal secretary is contemptible. I am just shaking my head. No one should be above the law nor beyond its reach. It is hard for me to understand why an obviously educated and sincere person would think that a secretary should be exempt. " If Clinton were indeed anxious for Mrs. Currie to give testimony--which I doubt, and not because of Clinton wrongdoing--that direction should come from Clinton. Mrs. Currie is in the wrong to have acted unilaterally--subpoened or not. Again, the truth can be a diaphanous creature. " So I suppose you would have a secretary be a co-conspirator. Lisa Ps If YOU know your boss is committing a crime are you going to keep your mouth shut - period -and morally be comfortable with that...let alone if you are under a legal requirement to talk....

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (4933)	2/6/1998 10:46:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

> Again, the truth can be a diaphanous creature. Now Holly, are you say-en... that truth can be like a tissue? I mean... one.... two.... or even three ply - you can see through it just fine when it's wet you know. ************* On another topic related I believe: Do you really find it that hard to fathom that Ms Currie had to tell the truth? Would you have the poor woman violate her conscience by telling a lie, and that under oath? I keep seeing her walking through the crowd after the hearing, she looked shell shocked and afraid. I think she went through misery; hated to have to tell what she knew because she liked the pres. and was apparently liked by not only him but everyone in the White House. Can you imagine how torn she was and is as she ruminates over all the possibilities - how she has effected her life and so many others. Still in all she did what she new she had to do to be at peace with herself and her God so I am told. She deserves a medal and certainly not a boss that created the situation she now finds herself in - assuming Bill is in fact guilty, of course. jh