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: Grainne who wrote (12525)	3/30/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Deliberately obstructing justice is the only thing that's kept them out of jail for the past 15 years. Here's another example ( as if we needed one ): Clinton asked Hale about SBA loan three times By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Clinton, who swore under oath he knew nothing about an illegal $300,000 government loan to Susan McDougal, was so concerned in 1986 that she had misused the cash he asked David L. Hale -- who approved the loan -- if he knew what had happened to the money. ÿÿÿÿÿAccording to lawyers and others familiar with the conversation, Mr. Clinton confronted Mr. Hale about the Small Business Administration loan at a west side Little Rock, Ark., shopping mall shortly after it was approved in March 1986. ÿÿÿÿIt was the third time Mr. Clinton had spoken to Mr. Hale about the loan, the sources said, and he was angry it had not been used exclusively on financial problems he and his Whitewater Development Corp. partner, James McDougal, had at Whitewater and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. The sources said Mr. Clinton believed Susan McDougal had diverted much of the cash to her own use. ÿÿÿÿÿThe extent and nature of the contact, which exceed what previously was believed about Mr. Clinton's efforts regarding the loan, are under investigation by Whitewater prosecutors. .... washtimes.com

To: Grainne who wrote (12525)	3/31/1998 7:51:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 20981

Christine, I think that illustrates the type of hubris we're dealing with here. IMHO, they knew that the release of the letters would raise questions of non-compliance (no way those letters get out w/o the approval of counsel), but the more pressing need was for them to attempt to discredit Willey, so they did the usual "we'll find a way to explain it down the road". If the other side had totally clean hands, they could make a very aggressive and very public attempt to push for sanctions, regardless of the likelihood of success. The more the other side can move the public dialogue away from "sex" and get back to the heart of the issue, whether this nation's chief law enforcement official has engaged in obstruction of justice, the better it is for them and IMHO the better it is for the country. The Republicans are guilty of the one of the cardinal sins of political warfare - never allow the other side to frame the debate. Good trading, Tom