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: jlallen who wrote (13775)	4/17/1998 1:39:00 PM
From: DScottD	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20981

>>But my point is you can't have it both ways. You can't defend Bubba by claiming its not proven in a Court of law while denying his accusers the same deference.<< There's a big difference. Bubba doesn't have to prove he didn't do it; his accusers have to prove he did do it. And who's defending Bubba anyway? He's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He's not civilly liable until PJ shows he is by a preponderance of the evidence. All we so-called Clintonistas want is to see the system work the way it was intended. I'm no apologist for the man but I have too much respect for his position and the Constitution to tolerate much more of this witch hunt. I say we use the dunk test on both of them. The one who floats has no soul and is obviously aligned with the Devil and must therefore be put to death. The one telling the truth will sink and be posthumously vindicated.

To: jlallen who wrote (13775)	4/17/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 20981

As you say, I'm only offering suppositions where Jones is concerned. I doubt we'll ever know the "truth" (which may, in fact, seem quite different things to Bubba and to Paula). I think Wright was, ah, right to dismiss what was an extremely feeble suit; she should have done it sooner, before Jones had succeeded in drawing so many other women into the case against their will. Yes, I've certainly spent a good deal of time looking for holes in the accusers' stories. The burden of proof is on them. Their accounts need at this point to be examined carefully, because if they don't have legitimate cause, their cases won't (or shouldn't) go to court. The only accusation Clinton's made so far is that Starr is out to get him; beyond that, he's merely issued denials. Anyhow: someone on this thread's gotta be willing to argue his part, or it wouldn't be much fun, would it?