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 (13946)	4/18/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Yes, but then maybe Bill never really DID suborn perjury. It's entirely possible that the imaginative Monica, increasingly hysterical, went to someone else for advice: hence the "talking points". Remember: Susan McDougal says she wouldn't talk because Starr was trying to make her testify to what he wanted her to testify to, regardless of whether it was true or not. Susie is a person of highly doubtful integrity, but I really don't see why she'd have been willing do do what she's done unless she really didn't have anything material to report. I think the real point behind the strategy of indicting Monica is that she does not seem like a young woman who is willing to be toast, and that indicting her would effectively get Clinton. Ginzburg has said that she is not going to take the fall for him, although he used different words. Taht may be, but once she's indicted, she's indicted. And she WILL take the fall. Yeah, she could plea bargain, but after all this insistence that he DIDN'T coerce her, would an about-face be believable?