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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TTOSBT who wrote (63029)	8/21/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Respond to of 186894

I think Mr. Freud would get a chuckle from your first sentence.

To: TTOSBT who wrote (63029)	8/21/1998 3:22:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 186894

OT Excuse me unless I head wrong. I think the tapes were brought to Starr before he called Clinton in the Paula Jones disposition? Therefore it is highly suspect that Starr listen to the tapes and then proceeded to expertly question Clinton so as to have him either expose himself or lie about exposing himself. <ggg> The Paula Jones suit was a civil suit unrelated to Starr's criminal investigation. At least before he perjured himself. Starr received permission on January 16 to expand his investigation into the alleged perjury. Either way Starr couldn't have lost by having those tapes. My point is Starr took advantage of his special position to entrap. He was in no position to entrap, not being a party to the Jones suit. Even if he were, if merely providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime was entrapment then you could never question anyone under oath nor arrest someone when they attempt to solicit prostitution from an undercover agent posing as a streetwalker. Entrapment involves actually enticing someone to commit a crime (which, BTW, in my mind does include the solicitation example but the courts say otherwise).