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: Frank who wrote (8642)	2/26/1998 9:34:00 PM
From: Surething	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Is it not the grand jury's goal to show there is enough evidence to press charges?(this is a serious question) IF this so, does it not seem odd after all the witness' to date there are no charges? Good Question Frank. As a Canadian (ignorant?)I always thought it was the role of the grand jury to hear evidence and then recommend charges if warranted. It seems Starr is using the Grand Jury process to try and force a political resolution. I.E. The resignation, or the impeachment of the President. I say that Americans should be asking Where's the Beef? Surely the Grand Jury should be asked to make a decision soon. Surething

To: Frank who wrote (8642)	2/26/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 20981

Hi, Frank!! I am not so sure Monica's mom is like yours. Did you ever suspect that your mom was involved in obstruction of justice, perjury, or suborning perjury? Monica's mom, at least from what Newsweek published of the tapes, seems to have had a hand in these offenses, including offers of money to Linda Tripp. This all goes just a little beyond baking really yummy apple pie, you know? Affectionately, Christine

To: Frank who wrote (8642)	2/26/1998 10:25:00 PM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 20981

<<< Which I assume Linda "coached/coeierced, as best a wired person can. >>>> Frank , my understanding is that Tripp felt a pressure to lie about things she knew , which apparently ran against her grain. Hence she taped the conversations. I'm not denying coaching , but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe one could "coach" several tales like this out of anyone without some truth to it. Actually I find it impossible to believe that people as bright as Surething and Janice fain not to see this either. russell

To: Frank who wrote (8642)	2/27/1998 12:38:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 20981

Frank, in a grand jury testimony, the IC doesn't press charges in the usual fashion. That is, there is no precedent for doing that, although I hear Starr is looking into that. What generally happens (ask Hillary) is that a group of lawyers under the IC write up a report and present it to congress. What congress does with the report is their baby. We do know that congress has recently added 17 attorneys to their staff, to help handle Starr's eventual report, assuming there is one. On Lewinsky: I know no more than you. I don't know her. I'm formulating preliminary opinions based on media reports, the same as anyone. For all I know the tapes don't even exist. There seems to be a lot of skepticism out here about the veracity of tape recordings. I thought the Watergate report evidence crucially hinged on tapes? Right or wrong? Is that all there was for evidence or not?