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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8469)	2/26/1998 1:45:00 AM
From: Surething	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Dwight, Have you heard those tapes? How can you rationally say those tapes are "Proof" when you have not heard them. Proof of what? Only alleged snippets have been published. And even within those snippets the President is never named. Maybe he is, Maybe he isn't no one but a select few know. But even if Lewinsky named the President is that in itself proof of an affair? Remember all the talk about the Semen Dress? It never existed. There is no proof. Only allegations. And so what! Surething

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8469)	2/26/1998 11:27:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

We (Starr) have things like um, 22 hours of taped conversations by someone who stated something utterly different in an affidavit under oath... Sure it's "evidence", but of what? Of the fact that Monica runs off at the mouth, but not of much else. Haven't you ever known women (and men) who make things up? This is a possibility well worth considering. I've known 'em, and they tend to be very, very convincing. When challenged, they'll say anything that pops into their tiny heads, hoping it'll serve. And we're not talking about "appearance of impropriety"; we're talking about "appearance of guilt" with reference to a criminal case. Sorry, but "innocent until proved guilty", last I heard...