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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Creditman who wrote (443)	8/22/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: art slott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Maybe he just doesn't like Starr. Maybe he doesn't want to make life fun for someone he despises. If someone was persecuting me for over 3 years I would deny him everything he wanted. He also was trying not to have embarrassing(not illegal) info out in public. Can't blame him. Its a media feeding frenzy and fooder for his enemies. I'm afraid the pundits won't like this. msnbc.com

To: Creditman who wrote (443)	8/22/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: LesX	Respond to of 67261

But Art the Star investigation would have been maybe a few months and few hundred grand had Clinton not used all the power of the Federal government to stall!! Why didn't he just fess up seven months ago? You're right, Clinton probably should have fessed up 7 months ago and came clean. My question to that is: Hind sight and all, what is the worst that would have happened to Clinton had he fully admitted his affair with Lewinsky in court? My guess is that Jones would have won and Clinton would've been tagged as a womanizer and fined $2M. Anyone see other outcomes? Nonetheless, I no longer see the benefits America reaps by continuing with this charade. LesX

To: Creditman who wrote (443)	8/22/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

But Art the Star investigation would have been maybe a few months and few hundred grand had Clinton not used all the power of the Federal government to stall!! Why didn't he just fess up seven months ago? And Clinton signed the Independent Counsel law ...don't forget that. Yes but you are forgetting something here. Unlike Watergate, the truths in this personal matter would have affected Hillary, Monica and Chelsea in a personally damaging matter. Of course with the benefit of hindsight we can all see that Clinton should have fessed up to the whole incident and now everyone would be better off - scandal actually draws MORE attention to this embarrassing incident. But he didnt know that then. So he probably weighed the evidence that he thought Starr had at the time, and came to the incorrect conclusion that he could deny it and stall for the rest of his term. My guess is Hillary supported that decision. Had this been about a different matter where others were not involved the decision of how to present it to the courts/TV would have been different. Lets put it this way, if I were Monica, I would have wanted him to lie. Michelle