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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jay who wrote (381)	8/3/1998 10:21:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

"Impeachable omission" Was he asked under oath if he had given her a gift and did he deny it? JLA

To: Jay who wrote (381)	8/3/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

CLINTON IN NEW PRIVILEGE FIGHT From: abcnews.com Washington, Aug. 3 -- The White House's battle to keep presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky investigation is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, sources tell ABCNEWS that Lewinsky spent yet another day with prosecutors, answering questions about her relationship with President Clinton. However, the former WH intern will not go before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury until later this week, at the earliest, the sources say. And in another development, WH counsel Lanny Breuer was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury on Tuesday. On the Lindsey matter, WH counsel Charles Ruff said in a statement he was asking the Supreme Court for an expedited review of a lower court decision that Lindsey, a deputy WH counsel and Clinton's closest adviser, be compelled to testify. Ruff also asked a federal appeals court to issue a stay of the lower court ruling until the Supreme Court could act. However, the appeals court refused tonight to block Lindsey's testimony, and the matter went immediately to Chief Justice Willian Rehnquist. He could decide the issue himself or send the matter to the full Supreme Court. (...) NB. Rest of the story at ABCNews Website. Rehnquist will probably rule again against delay.