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 (11521)	3/19/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>And if Willey had no intention of being "bribed" by the publisher in L.A., why did her lawyer negotiate with him for six weeks? Why negotiate with him at all? There is a big difference between being paid to write a book relating her story and being paid to write a book that adjusts her story to fit the publisher's political stance. I believe Viner was trying to do the latter. Examine the following: Viner says that there never was a book there, just a chapter. So why did he attempt to reopen negotiations as soon as he heard of the 60 Minutes interview? To try to influence her one last time by dangling $300,000 in front of her? And why did he drop negotiations and immediately try to discredit her as soon as her story had gone national? Seems a strong political agenda exists in all of Viner's moves. Btw, the news is reporting that Willey also turned down money for her story by the Star when she decided to go on TV. Next thing Penthouse will claim she was offered $1,000,000 by them to pose.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (11521)	3/19/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

I just don't have any answers here!! I do remember that Willey was at first a very reluctant witness. Is it possible that Willey felt that Tripp should just shut up so Willey would not be dragged into this? My own sense is that SOMETHING happened in the Oval Office that day, but that Willey has had really ambivalent feelings about the incident, and saw as the other women came forward that this was not in anyway an isolated occurrence. Don't forget that she is a Clintonista ideologically, so it would be normal for her to be really conflicted about all of this. I think Duncan may have a point about the revelations that she tried to sell her story. Perhaps it is a means to try and discredit her.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (11521)	3/19/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Mrs. Steele's sworn statement said she told Newsweek in late July 1997 that she lied to reporter Michael Isikoff that spring, to "set the record straight" before the first Newsweek story. That article did not include those contradictions when it was published in the edition dated Aug. 11, 1997. washtimes.com Another question about Steele: Why didn't Steele issue a denial of the Newsweek story and ask for a correction at the time? Why did she wait until after she became important to the ongoing effort to discredit Willey?