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: loafer who wrote (5472)	2/9/1998 12:59:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20981

Although I'd still like to know who bankrolled Slick's trip to Russia way back when he was a starving college student. So, loafer, what do you think? Is he a stooge of communist handlers? Do you think the Russians planted him, like The Manchurian Candidate?

To: loafer who wrote (5472)	2/9/1998 1:03:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Loafer, do you have any opinion on the fact that the Newsweek report of independent corroboration of Monica's story, because she told another intern who heard Billy talking on Monica's answering machine, and who has been deposed, was attributed to a source close to the president, NOT the independent prosecutor? This would perhaps fit in with the suppositions of some people on this thread that the White House is trying to get the bad news out in a way that they can possibly exert more control over it, and that Starr's office may be less guilty of leaking than they have been accused of lately.

To: loafer who wrote (5472)	2/9/1998 11:20:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Although I'd still like to know who bankrolled Slick's trip to Russia way back when he was a starving college student. Actually he went as part of a program organized by Georgetown University. Blame the Jesuits. I suppose by this logic we must assume that Samantha Smith, too, was a communist tool, and that her later "accidental" death was the result of sinister arrangement. Basically as I've said earlier, these deaths, threats and beatings are facts, make of them what you will. You can't deny they didn't happen, however. The obituaries are real. I see. If Bill Clinton didn't exist, immortality would have been conferred on all of these people. You say one can't deny this stuff didn't happen? Why on earth not? Have you seen the actual police records? Read the actual obituaries? I by no means believe everything I read in the "mainstream" press, much less what's written by people with a very clear (and more than slightly fanatical) political agenda. Still can't quite get round the hilarious inefficiency of it all: the supposedly major players in this little drama--Flowers, Jones, the trooper who allegedly took Jones to meet Clinton at the hotel--are all alive and well. So much easier, really, to off them (especially Paula) and so put the whole thing behind oneself. As for Tripp's stay in a "safe house", I've previously proposed that she's there simply because Starr wants to keep her away from the press. He may also not be allowing her to keep up with news, so as not to run the risk of inadvertantly compromising her testimony. Could also be that he doesn't want her to have further contacts with the creepy Lucianne Goldberg. Interesting that (as far as I know) he has no intention of calling Goldberg to testify. Or, as you suggest, the administration may be plotting to kill her: but of the possibilities outlined above, this seems by quite a stretch the least likely.

To: loafer who wrote (5472)	2/9/1998 7:22:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Loafer, I had opportunity to ask some guys who work for Starbucks about the info from Washington Weekly. They were familiar with the incident and said that by all accounts the murders were an inside job. Someone had the keys apparently and the cops suspected a disgruntled employee. I had other questions I wanted to ask but the guy became aggravated, obviously a Clintonite <g>. His explanation came short of answering why the police were not able to find an employee that fit the profile among other things. Anyway, it was a fun read and added spice to my day. Still not sure just how credible the source is though. Why is it this hasn't been made known through the larger media, or has it? jh