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: Grainne who wrote (5491)	2/9/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Robert Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Discreet and Diplomatic.......... Please, Mr. Clinton be very careful: investor1.com

To: Grainne who wrote (5491)	2/9/1998 11:50:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

>>I had asked before, and don't think the question was answered--is there ANY legal strategy that Ginsburg could be following that could in the end show him to be very clever, instead of totally out of his league? He is taking his case to court to enforce what he sees as a firm agreement for immunity for Monica. Hi Christine: As regards the "firm immunity agreement" - it's nonsense. Yesterday, on ABC's This Week, Stewart Taylor of the National Journal said that no judge would seriously consider Ginsburg's argument - in fact he said that he challenged Ginsburg on this point while on another show together, saying he would give Ginsburg 10-1 odds on any court finding against Starr. Taylor says he still has not heard from Ginsburg. I believe that Ginsburg is now working hand in glove with Clinton's advisors. I think his objective is to save Clinton - remember, Monica's mother is marrying R. Peter Straus, a big Dem who held positions in two Dem administrations. Ginsburg was also on the front page of the Jerusalem Post proclaiming his support for Clinton soon after he took over. And remember Ginsburg has done as much as anybody to destroy Monica's value to Starr as a witness. Ginsburg has probably told Monica that she has a choice between telling the whole truth and going down in history as the slut who ended the presidency of a man both support or being known as the woman who toughed it out and saved "their man". I think that when Ginsburg began the strategy of undermining Monica as a witness he probably believed that Starr needed Monica, but that seems to be less and less the case. That's why Ginsburg is going at great lengths to dismiss any corroboration of Tripp's story. Yesterday he said that Tripp was a totally discredited witness - something which could not be more wrong. As for your earlier question, all these new witnesses have value because they provide corroboration that Monica had made contemporaneous declarations of her affair with people other than Tripp. Whether or not this testimony is hearsay does not matter before a grand jury and even in federal court there are many hearsay exceptions. Anyway, Starr says his view is that a sitting president cannot be indicted and that all evidence of criminal obstruction of justice will go to Congress. Congress must then act. Interestingly, the WSJ says today that Starr agrees with what a prominent Clintonista had once declared that Congress can do at that point: More than three centuries later, the House Judiciary Staff conducting the impeachment inquiry of President Nixon prepared a report that made a similar observation. Decisions on impeachment should be "flexible" enough to include any type of "grave misconduct" that harms the government, the report stated. Impeachment doesn't depend on "the various elements of proof surrounding an indictable offense." The name of one staffer who helped draft the report? Hillary Rodham. interactive.wsj.com