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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg B. who wrote (14884)	9/11/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

iranian.com What? You going to ask the Ayatollahs? Isn't there something about separation of church and state in the USA? Keep the noise down please, people are trying to buy shares in Qualcomm. Hillary said forget it! This whole circus is crazy. Mqurice

To: Greg B. who wrote (14884)	9/11/1998 4:56:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Am reading it some more. The thing that does stick in your (my) craw a bit, even if you think this whole thing is vastly out of proportion, is this: The Pres. is pretty clearly still lying repeatedly about elements of his testimony. But its all really just pile on. He's lying in the grand jury about lying in the deposition. Starr's team skillfully create heaps of pile on over basically the same lie. That he didn't have sexual relations, as Jones's lawyers rather incompetently let it become defined. Meaning basically that he didn't "do" her genitally. She could have done him. (Like it or not that is a permissible legalistic reading of the Jones deposition definition.) I for one find it hard to greatly blame Clinton for wanting to mislead Jones's lawyers on that. (How could he know that Lewinsky's testimony could be coerced by the Special Prosecutor through the Tripp tapes.) The question shouldn't even have been asked, since it was not sufficiently relevant to the issue of whether he imposed unwanted advances upon Paula Jones. Certainly not sufficiently relevant in light of the horribly prejudicial effect. Clearly a forthright answer would have had huge costs for the sitting President, and his family, given the certainty that it would be leaked to the nation in violation of the Judge's orders. What he tried to do was mislead them without committing outright civil perjury. Misleading statements are not perjurious. That is clear Supreme Court law. He tried, but probably didn't succeed. But I don't think Starr has an absolute smoking gun. He can't prove that the [gasp] breast kissing or p***y touching did occur. Anyway, I think the real danger for the President would have been smoking gun evidence of really odious obstruction of justice. Clear quid pro quo inducements, threats or instructions to lie under oath. Worse still, and clearly impeachable, would have been use of the FBI or IRS to cover up or intimidate people for him (a la Nixon). Hints and nods that it would be better for both he and Lewinsky if their affair didn't come out just isn't anything very shocking. Is it obstruction of justice to help someone he had an affair with get a job? Sure, he wasn't treating her like an intern. He was treating her like a close friend. Is he required to totally spurn and infuriate her so that she runs furiously and accusingly into Starr's arms? Doug

To: Greg B. who wrote (14884)	9/11/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I keep hearing on the media by turns breathless and ominous talk about all these "lurid" and "salacious" details. I'm having a hard time finding them. Now any details about your Head of State's sex life is highly undignified, and seems a diminishing and very distastesful invasion. But I gotta tell you there's nothing I've seen in the sex are that even remotely shocks me. The cigar bit is the absolute kinkiest. And its about as vanilla as you might imagine that to be. Anyone who thinks the stuff I've seen so far is disgusting or something probably needs some sex therapy to help their marriage out. Of course its probably a wee bit better for one's marriage if that's where one keeps it. <g> Hey, I guess I'm just a shocking libertine. Or maybe I just haven't gotten to the "shocking" parts. But I think I have. Have any of these people ever seen any of the movie channels after 11 pm or so on weekends on U.S. cable? Not to mention, gasp, Italian, French or even sometimes British broadcast TV? One suspects this is for the benefit of the holly rollers among us. One also suspects that most of these journalists have read a lot less of the report than I have. And are pretty slow about it to boot. Doug