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 (5079)	2/7/1998 1:54:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Holly, res-<< In the case as presented so far, I think at best it is dirty pool to subpoena Betty Currie's testimony and smacks of a blatantly blind fishing expedition.>> You or I have really no idea what the case as presented so far is. Don't forget Janet Reno and three judges voted to allow Kenneth Star to broaden his investigation into these area's. They must have cast their vote on a reasonable belief of potential criminal activity. I for one trust the judgement of four people who are tasked with upholding the law. They had nothing to gain one way or the other by the outcome. Other than to find the truth. Betty Currie is a part of this investigation. She may hold key evidence one way or the other. Her testifying is not dirty pool in any way. It's simply part of Kenneth Starr's method of arriving at the truth. The truth should be the overriding concern. Not some fictional secretary to boss priviledge. Michael

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5079)	2/7/1998 8:49:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 20981

In the case as presented so far, I think at best it is dirty pool to subpoena Betty Currie's testimony and smacks of a blatantly blind fishing expedition. From the Clinton supporter perspective, it appears that ANYONE who might reveal something which would explain Lewinsky's contradictory statements is desperately wished to be kept as far from Ken Starr as possible. From what we have seen and heard (more importantly, not heard) so far, we can infer that when Clinton said, "all we want is to find out the truth", that itself was another lie. As IBD pointed out recently, ANYTIME Clinton would like to tell "the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God", he is free to do so. That is, he is under no gag order to be practically silent. There are dozens of things which scream out for explanations, yet Clinton chooses not to offer any explanations: 1) Why did Lewinsky visit the White House 37 times after she no longer worked there? 2) If the "answer" to the prior question is "to visit Betty Currie", then: Is it the normal White House practice to allow former interns to have virtually unlimited access to the President's personal secretary at the White House well after their employment at the White House ends? 3) How to explain Lewinsky's contradictory statements (on tape and under oath)? If Lewinsky is unstable and delusionary, then why was such a person given such easy access to the White House, and Betty Currie, the President's personal secretary? 4) Aren't there security issues here, such as the safety of the President, and the integrity of White House staff? It appears that under this White House, it would be fairly easy for a foreign "sleeper agent" (pardon the pun -G-) to go to work as a White House intern, to be "activated" whenever required by the people back in Iran, Iraq, Russia, or wherever, to do whatever "job" needed doing, like offing the Pres. Some Americans are concerned with such things, and this whole sorry mess begs answers. The fact that some would want to stonewall the investigation makes me more sure than ever that something bad went on down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Wash DC. DK