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 (8472)	2/26/1998 2:00:00 AM
From: Surething	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Hi Dwight, I guess when someone offers you an argument that strips away emotion and goes to the core of the issue you call it babbling. Also you answered my argument by diverting the topic on to Paula Jones. It just proves to me that people like yourself are unwilling or perhaps unable to sensibly argue about this affair. Your motives are obvious now to us all. You are in the Get rid of Clinton at any cost camp. Your logic says Damn the Constitution! Damn the innocents who get in the way of Starr and his Thugs! Damn due process! Surething

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8472)	2/26/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20981

BUT IT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT IN THE JONES' SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT, ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE OVERSEEING THAT CASE. No. It was judged to be the business of the court by Jones's lawyers. Susan Wright, the judge, has in fact now disallowed all reference to Lewinsky in the Jones case. Which raises the question of whether, in a technical sense, Bill committed perjury even if he lied. The "evidence", after all, is now inadmissable. And once again: NONE OF IT has anything to do with Whitewater. Investigating Whitewater, not investigating any damned thing he wants up to and including Bill's bathroom habits, is Starr's brief.