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: P.T.Burnem who wrote (18401)	8/19/1998 3:34:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

He doesn't have to. The congress will decide if there is enough evidence in the report to make a case for perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering.....believe me, it's not going to go that far. If the dems have any brains left they will see to it that he resigns before articles of impeachment are sought. Republican leadership has already sent signals that perjury is an impeachable offense. Screw the polls. bp

To: P.T.Burnem who wrote (18401)	8/19/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Michael Sphar	Respond to of 20981

Oh come on, this is no longer a matter of legalese. He just severed the support link for all the wives, former wives and would be wives in the country. He could survive allegations of wrong doing as seen through defensive supportive blinders but these came off Monday night. A major matter of trust just bared its ugly head in a horribly public way. His female supporters for the most part are in shock and pain. They never wanted to believe this of him, and now he has forced them to do so. Retribution will be harsh, trust me.

To: P.T.Burnem who wrote (18401)	8/20/1998 12:37:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

"beyond a reasonable doubt." Did you know that a jury doesn't need one shred (drop, piece) of physical evidence to convict? All it takes is a single eye-witness to say, "yes, he, that guy right there, he did it." Monica's testimony is all-important, and as an eyewitness and participate (also recipient, if news stories are correct) is powerful enough so that her testimony alone could very well be enough to convince the Grand Jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Starr is just the cop here, the investigator. He's not the Grand Jury. That's it. It's all in the jury's hands. In this case, the case would, in the case of "conviction", go to Congress. IMO, if Starr submits his report to Congress in its current form, Clinton will survive. How can you possibly reach that conclusion, having no idea what the report contains? Unless you are on Starr's staff, and are a co-author? Don't keep us in suspense, man.