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 (5692)	2/10/1998 12:01:00 PM
From: James F. Hopkins	Respond to of 20981

Ida-ho; Message 3389896 <G> BTW u know that name has it's roots coming from some Indian calling his squaw, some dum europee-uns ditnt understand what was going on and named a state after it. The Indian was calling his squaw to see if she could understand any of the gobble gook the white man was sputtering. <G>

To: Zoltan! who wrote (5692)	2/10/1998 9:21:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Hi, Duncan!! I have been doing some reading today, and this week's Time Magazine's coverage also suggests that it was quite possible that the potentially damaging Currie testimony may have been a White House leak. Since her testimony may support the obstruction of justice charges, which would usually be a no-win for Clinton, the theory in the article goes that since the information was going to come out, anyway, and it was going to be very damaging, why not tarnish Starr at the same time? The article also pointed out that impeachment is more of a political than a legal process, and if Clinton's White House has the public on its side in the polls, and villifies Starr enough, impeachment proceedings could go nowhere even if the most serious charges have been proven.