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: Janice Shell who wrote (8523)	2/26/1998 6:09:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Re Sorry, but "innocent until proved guilty", last I heard... Don't be sorry, because of course in a legal sense, and in view of the court, both Clinton and Monica are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So Janet Reno has apparently decided that, in the course of upholding law, truth, and justice, that the conflicting pieces of evidence that Starr possesses warrants further investigation. That's all this is about. It's not about whether or not Starr deserves a popularity prize for being such a nice guy. Since when were cops always nice in the first place? Re Sure it's "evidence", but of what? Of the fact that Monica runs off at the mouth, but not of much else. We can hardly go making judgements about what evidence Starr has or does not have. Monica's mother didn't seem exactly jubilant after departing Starr's investigative chambers. Re Haven't you ever known women (and men) who make things up? This is a possibility well worth considering. Not for me to consider. Janice, don't put me on the Starr grand jury when I haven't had the benefit of the testimony and evidence presented so far. I'm not going to make one tiny assumption about Monica Lewinsky, other than she looks like she's eaten a few too many twinkies. Yes that's twinkies, not anything else, not one time, not ever. -GG- DK

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8523)	2/27/1998 2:05:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, again in re >Sure it's "evidence", but of what? Of the fact that [xxx--edited out--xxx] 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.< Sure I've known and do know liers, who appear to quite able of believing their own lies. Not that such lies have fooled me forever. Sometimes there's cooberating testimony which reveals things as lies. Do you suppose Hillary Rodam was using your above arguments while she was serving on the legal team investigating Nixon, when considering the appropriateness of using the Nixon tapes as core evidence of his knowledge of the Watergate break-in? And certainly there should be cooberating testimony, and more evidence, if possible. But a defendent/target's own words would seem to be important evidence, particularly when such words and conversations appear not only very copious in quantity, but incriminating as well. For any IC to dismiss out of hand such evidence would, in my view, be a gross miscarriage of justice. Then again, a Democratic Congressman was in recent years let off of some charges with the acceptance of the idea that he lied to his own diary. So, I'm not saying Monica won't slither out of this. I'm sure she'll come out of it smelling like a million dollars. DK