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: John Hensley who wrote (4432)	9/10/1998 11:16:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Counting the hours until Friday... They better have it up on the mother of all servers or 150 mirror sites or you won't be able to access it for a month at least. Curious, how many intend to try to plow through all 400 some pages? Pretty daunting prospect to me.

To: John Hensley who wrote (4432)	9/10/1998 11:37:00 AM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

A couple of errors to straighten out: Hillary and Ira Magaziner both signed affidavits that they were all public employees Hillary did not sign such an affidavit. Only Magaziner did, and the judge did not dispute that at the time Ira signed it he thought it was true. The judge said that Ira violated his continuing duty to update the affidavit when he knew that circumstances had changed that made it incorrect. apparently saw White House employees loading data from the files into a taxpayer-paid $3 million computer system used for DNC purposes. Hmm, a rumor bandied about by Drudge of a statement allegedly made by a known liar. I think I'll wait for the book. She swore under oath she had nothing to do with the firings, contradicting David Watkins. I don't believe that it was under oath. Anyway, the Watkins statement was also hearsay upon hearsay. When people are being let go, lies are inevitable: "New management wants to clean house so they can bring their own people in" and "we have to make cutbacks; this has nothing to do with job performance." All to avoid having to say, "you're fired for being an incompetent boob." As long as Hillary's statement was not under oath, I don't see any harm in this at all. Counting the hours until Friday... What makes you so sure that they will release this thing by then? If Congress hadn't even seen it when they made that promise, it's vaporware. It's quite possible that Starr's report is riddled with GJ testimony and other confidential material that Starr does not want out there. It may be days or weeks before that material can be sufficiently redacted. I'm not saying that I know what's going to happen, but last night it seemed awfully premature for the Congress to already to be talking about release to the public. Doughboy.