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: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (12545)	3/31/1998 8:21:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

>>Zoltan, it would work, but the WH Press Office and its "affiliates" are counting on winning the Jones suit at trial. That allows them to make the argument to the public "look, we went into a court of law and we were exonerated. That speaks for itself. That ends the matter."... The Clintonista WH can say anything and have. But ends it? Hardly. More like just the beginning of the end. That outcome would be a Pyrrhic victory, Clinton would lose by winning. The Clinton tactics have given Jones ample grounds for appealing any loss on the District court level to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supremes if necessary. That's what a "win" adumbrates for him - a brief period of faux "vindication" and then years of expensive litigation with continuing public humiliation. The best outcome for Clinton would be to lose on Summary J based on Bennett's performance - they would all claim it was Bob's fault and that Jones never actually proved a thing. Of course Bennett would lose his reputation - whatever he has left of it - just another casualty of Bill and Hillary and not an uncommon fate for those who do the Clinton's dirty work. Paging Vince Foster, McDougal & xWife, Webb Hubbell, Jim Guy Tucker and a literal cast of thousands. Actually, as you implied, the Clintons and cronies will lie and say that no matter what the legal outcome, even if Jones wins on the merits.

To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (12545)	3/31/1998 8:46:00 AM
From: THE DUGGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

I have thought that if we carry this debate to the sought after conclusion, that Clinton would resign or be impeached, it would be bad for the country. Two reasons, really. One is that Al Gore would be President. I just don't see him as being an effective President. The second relates to the law of unintended consequences. When Nixon was forced to resign, we got two good years of a Gerald Ford Presidency. But, as a direct result of the country's bad feelings toward Nixon (and therefore Republicans), Ford could not beat Jimmy Carter in 1976. I have always felt that was the country's loss. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy with great morals who was not a very effective President. Now I'm starting to think that maybe Clinton's resignation would be the best thing anyway. That he is guilty of lots of sleazy activity is obvious. And his continual denials are getting old. So, maybe getting rid of him would be the best. I would caution, however, that it wouldn't be all peaches and cream, just because he was gone. Dugger