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: Zoltan! who wrote (5115)	2/7/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: Vaughn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Does the Right hand know what the Left is doing? I think so! The following excerpt from the KS letter to Clinton's attorney leads me to believe that: a. It is very possible that some if not all the leaks are originating from the White House. b. KS and staff have a good idea of this and will expand their investigation once again to find the leak source(s). What a tangled web we weave... the excerpt: >Indeed, the ''facts'' from the press that you cite as evidence of misconduct were, in each case, known to individuals outside my office. These individuals include witnesses, my lawyers, and others. Let me cite one noteworthy example: Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, has told the world that he was in touch with lawyers on both sides of the pending civil case. The ''leaks'' that you complain about, thus, may have come from sources close to those under investigation. Those sources would have a clear and manifest motivation to release harmful information with carefully crafted defenses in order to lessen the painful impact of such evidence when it is revealed through official proceedings.<

To: Zoltan! who wrote (5115)	2/7/1998 11:12:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 20981

Hi, Duncan!! Thanks for posting Starr's reply. I did not see Charlie Rose, but I did see Thursday's Nightline, and I would absolutely agree with you that Kendall's letter seems to be an attempt at drawing the public's attention away from the potentially serious nature of the situation for Clinton. Having said that, and assuming that the leaks are coming from the administration, I am very curious as to why the attorneys for the valet and Betty Currie have come forward and said that the leaks do not truthfully represent their clients' testimony before the grand jury. This is troubling, logically speaking, but perhaps you could explain it. I think it is helpful to remember, as I was reminded by watching last night's NBC evening news, that while the president is claiming that he cannot speak because he is under some sort of legal prohibition from doing so, legally that is not the case. At the time the Lewinsky part of the scandal began, in fact, he promised "more rather than less, now rather than later" to the American people. Then when his popularity soared rather than declined, the White House decided that they did not have to clarify the relationship. Since the president COULD come forward and address the allegations, and state what his relationship was with this woman, and does not, it certainly could lead one to believe that his strategy is to wait and see what comes out, and then tailor a story as best as he can to explain what has happened. A man with nothing to hide, and the truth on his side, would probably be acting more forthrightly. I have absolutely no explanation for Ginzburg, although of course like everyone else I have heard the accusations that he is way out of his league, since he is a medical malpractice attorney. I have read he did not even know what a proffer was! I was hoping an attorney like yourself could remark on whether his strategy is just horrible, or perhaps diabolically brilliant.