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 (11511)	3/19/1998 9:32:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Well, yes, I am the first to admit that scenario sounds improbable. But this part of the tangled mess is quite puzzling in other aspects that I have not been able to sort out, either. For example, look at this quote from the article flickerful posted: <Steele said Willey had told her later she had asked Steele to lie because Isikoff was likely to interview former White House aide Linda Tripp and Tripp was unlikely to corroborate the story.> Now why would Tripp be unlikely to corroborate the story? We know that Tripp did, in fact, say she saw Willey looking disheveled after she exited the Oval Office, and Willey told Tripp at the time what had happened, if I am not mistaken. And why do the talking points make it so important to discredit Willey? Whoever wrote them wanted Tripp to say it now seemed plausible that Willey herself untucked her blouse and smeared her lipstick. Then we have the allegations about Martin Landow and Bennett both either suggesting Willey change her story, or threatening her. I don't know quite what to make of the Isikoff/Steele question you asked, but there seem to be so many (alleged) atttempts to discredit Willey, that I would like to know more about Steele before I can be sure she is credible here. One puzzle after another!!

To: Janice Shell who wrote (11511)	3/19/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>To suppose that Steele is lying means that we must imagine the White House somehow knew Isikoff planned to interview her, and got to her earlier. Not true. Steele had already told her story to Isikoff supporting Willey. We would have to believe her tale of telling Isikoff that she herself was liar before publication and that Isikoff went ahead anyway. Very unlikely. Especially since Steele has done what others accuse Willey of merely attempting to do - cashing in.