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 (8526)	2/26/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Which raises the question of whether, in a technical sense, Bill committed perjury even if he lied. The "evidence", after all, is now inadmissable. Sorry Janice, but that is not true at all, although I can understand your thinking so because that was the WH line after the ruling. That lasted about one day before it was shattered by legal experts - Clinton can be subject to perjury changes based on that deposition. Btw, that ruling concerning the Jones case is not final, it is under appeal.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8526)	2/26/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

If this thing is as natural and simple as a cat taking a poop in the backyard, why are we covering this small insignificant pile of none of our business fluff with the largest earth movers available? Somebody out there appears to be getting pretty damn worried. If the polls are correct, no matter how moronic, why worry?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8526)	2/26/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, >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.< Reno appointed Starr to investigate Whitewater. Reno gave the Travelgate case to Starr. Reno gave the Filegate case to Starr. Reno gave another case to Starr that slips my mind at the moment. Tripp brought the Lewinski tapes to Starr who told Reno and the three judge panel about them. They gave him the case. I am totally amazed Reno didn't give the Babbitt/Indian casino case to Starr. There could (maybe should) have been a separate IC appointed for each case. After all, as you say, what do hundreds of FBI files have to do with a real estate deal in Arkansas?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8526)	2/26/1998 6:24:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, I haven't heard any of what your saying. I did hear that Susan Wright, the judge in the Jones' case, has in fact from now on forbid the Jones' attorneys from questioning the same witnesses that Starr is attempting to question. It seems that the two legal teams were trying to hound the same witnesses at the same time, perhaps hindering one investigation over the other. Susan bowed to Starr, is all, is how it looked to me. The "evidence", after all, is now inadmissable. Janice, if that's true, then that's huge news, and Starr may as well forget about Clinton and focus on Monica's alleged perjury, and the talking points. Could you please provide some source for your info on this bit of surprising news about Clinton's affidavit to the Jones' court now being ruled inadmissible in that court. What were the grounds for the Judge to effectively reverse her own opinion, if that's how it was? Nevertheless, perjury is perjury, and the President has no right to commit perjury in an affidavit to any court. That you, Holly, Surething, and who cares else doesn't care if he did or not does not make him any more above the law than the next guy. It's sad that our President has such a difficult time telling the truth when asked by a court of law. DK