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: Sam who wrote (13634)	4/16/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: John Hensley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Sam- I could care less what both Clintons, or anybody else does in their private lives, but it REALLY bothers me when the chief law enforcement officer LIES under oath and possibly encourages other to lie also. Don't you think this opens up a pandora's box of litigants in this country to go ahead and lie if they KNOW they won't get prosecuted? This country is based on a rule of law and one of the most important is telling the truth under oath.

To: Sam who wrote (13634)	4/16/1998 11:04:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>if it has to do violating someone else's rights in some way (a la Packwood), then that is a different story, but that isn't focused on the sex part of it, it is on the violation, the abuse. Packwood? When did he ever threaten women? Did he have goon squads like Clinton? One former Arkansas beauty queen has stated that she was threatened with having her legs broken if she went public. Morris said Clinton spent $100,000 of Federal money tracking them down and shutting them up. I suppose that didn't intimidate them or affect their rights. Your guys focus on the sex part as a diversion from the legal issues. Many of Slick's defenders even admit he's a degenerate but then move on to subverting the legal inquiry. >> All the stuff about what we "know" is on the tapes, or occurred in depositions that should have been under seal or that was (or was not) in the proffer (which should also have been confidential)--all that stuff makes me sick Sure it does, because that's where the crimes were committed and you, as an inveterate Democrat, want to avoid discussion of Clinton's crimes at all cost. Clinton lies and says he can't say whether anyone invoked executive privilige because of some gag order - totally false but the media lets him get away with lie after lie, distortion after distortion. Talk about the sex and say it's nobody's business while trying to shut down the real legal inquiry - that tactic has worked for delay but will fail in the long run. There is nothing that can be done to prevent the entire Slick Administration from looking more and more like the large criminal conspiracy that it apparently is. Btw, it's an easy bet that if the Czars were still around Clinton would have been selling advanced missile technology to them for illegal campaign cash.