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 (13778)	4/17/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

It seems fairly convincing to me on a civil or criminal standard that Bubba has lied, perjured himself, suborned perjury and obstructed justice, etc. etc. You'd like to convict him on "fairly convincing" evidence? Sorry, that ain't the law. The law specifies that he be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a far cry from "fairly convincing". Lying is not a crime. Throw that one out. Perjury. Maybe he lied under oath about Monica. Maybe he didn't. I'm still prepared to entertain the notion that Monica was one of his few alleged lovers who really didn't have an affair with him. Even so, now that Wright first excluded the Lewinsky material from the Jones case, and subsequently dismissed the Jones case entirely, there is, apparently, some question as to whether any lies he may have told about his relationship would constitute perjury, given the fact that they are no longer material to any case at all. Yes, I know legal opinion on this point is divided, but I don't doubt it's a question that both sides will enjoy arguing for a long time, should any case actually come to court. Subornation of perjury? Forget it. He's a lawyer, too, after all, and I doubt very much whether he'd have been dumb enough to have done it himself. Did someone else do it for him? This will very likely be impossible to prove. Hell, not even "fairly" convincing...

To: jlallen who wrote (13778)	4/17/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

It hasn't been formally decided in a Court of law for the most part due to the lie and deny strategy, stonewalling and various privileges which have been asserted by Clinton's White House. It hasn't been formally decided in a court of law because so far Starr has failed to produce evidence sufficient to warrant a trial. Sorry, but taht's how it is. "Lie and deny" strategy. How do you know he's lying? And OF COURSE he denies. Defendents usually DO deny guilt, do they not? Stonewalling? Perry Mason always instructed his clients never to volunteer information, and in fact that's what any good lawyer does.

To: jlallen who wrote (13778)	4/17/1998 2:09:00 PM
From: DScottD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

We differ, JLA, only in our opinion as to the persuasiveness of the evidence that has been brought to light. I have a hard time believing PJ, primarily because if she was so hurt by what Slick allegedly did to her, why did she wait 3 years to bring the suit. How come Willey waited 4-1/2 years to go public with her story. The Gracen infidelity occurred nearly a decade ago and he did nothing illegal there anyway. When it comes time to try the man I will pay attention and evaluate the evidence presented with an open mind. Until then, all we have is conjecture, rumors and innuendo which, at least in my opinion, feeble and unreasoned as it may be, add up to nothing. By the way, the delaying tactics are par for the course for this type of proceeding. I have previously posted at Boink my opinion on the President's use of executive privilege to stall this thing. His argument in that respect is a loser and borders on being sanctionable. I don't like the way his people have to smear anyone who is not in his corner. But, it's a free country. I, for one, am thankful for Presidential term limits. January 20, 2001 can't come soon enough; unless of course my bank hasn't solved its Y2K problem yet.