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 (5146)	2/7/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Holly, the fact that the word 'secretary' originally meant 'keeper of secrets' is really totally irrelevant to the discussion on this thread. Societies, and job functions, evolve over time. I don't believe anyone here is arguing that secretaries should be anything other than trustworthy and totally discreet EXCEPT when they are under oath, and by that time, for the public good, it has been decided under our system of laws and courts that there is a compelling reason for testimony. Lisa is not the only person who is disturbed by some of the things you said that did tend to villify Betty Currie, and secretaries in general who do not ascribe to your implied code of amorality and evading truthful testimony. I would agree that this can be a generally friendly, humorous thread for exchanging various points of view, but it is you who got extremely serious and maligned Currie, without any of us even really knowing yet what her grand jury testimony was. Perhaps we should CHILL on this issue until we find out more about what she actually said.

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5146)	2/8/1998 10:51:00 AM
From: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Many people will read the same set of words and infer or ascribe widely ranging differences re meaning and intent-" Holly the bottom line is this...you have said and meant the following (and there is no doubt about it) 1. A secretary should be exalted to a status of privilege that exceeds the attorney/client priv. because the secretary is privy to more information than the attorney. 2. The secretary should be above questioning for "any reason" 3. Whether Clinton is guilty Whether Currie was subpeoned Currie is "an utter disgrace" at this point There is NO DOUBT ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID so dont try to tell me that I have misinterpreted you. Dont try to tell me you havent vilified Currie. The question remains...what would you do???? 1. Would you testify and lie? 2. Would you refuse to testify and go to jail? 3. Would you testify and tell the truth...Well I guess this one is out of the question since that would mean you would be like Currie and be an "utter disgrace" and as far as some study of etymology on the word secretary..it is irrelevant. It doesnt change what you have said nor does it give your ideas any credence. (or as one lawyer said to me when I mentioned your ideas.."WHAT?! You have never heard of the employer/secretary privilege..well it must date back to at least 13th century england") (oops for you that subscribe to Hollys ideas...before you go out and think there is ANY credence in the law for these ideas....he was saying that in jest) Quite frankly I find these ideas outrageously ludicrous which is what brought me out of lurk mode. Lets just give carte blanche to anyone who has a secretary. The one benefit to Hollys concept is that there would no doubt be more people hiring secretaries..but I dont think greenspan would like the squeeze on the labor market. On the fact that you havent found anything material so far in the the purported evidence...i will cut you slack on that since you have no obvious concept of how the legal system works. Yes, in fact there are material things that have been reported. If the things that have been reported exist..it would be up to the fact finder to determine the veracity. (if it were a court of law) As we are talking about a congressional hearing, I don't know how they handle that kind of thing. btw, if you read Ken starr's letter you will see that some of the things in the New York Times do exist. talking points....being published today in the Times drudgereport.com