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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee who wrote (65244)	9/12/1998 12:41:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

<<OT - Lee: It is a tangled web that was woven (my apologies in advance to the Bard) but it isn't linear (and it isn't over): During the investigation and the testimony before the Grand Jury, evidence that the President may have lied under oath became significant enough that a three judge panel agreed, along with Ms. Reno, that it warranted expansion of Starr's inquiry. Thus, another track began and that has been the primary focus of the effort. That does not mean there isn't more; in any prosecution, the prosecutor is prone to take a fast-track to conviction. (After all, they got Al Capone on tax evasion, not murder, conspiracy, etc.) IF, they get Bill on this one, it brings into question his credibility in ALL of the other issues and inquiries. First, prove the behavior (lying) then use that to diminish his credibility in the other cases. Sound reasoning for a prosecutor. The first train has pulled into the station; he has an opportunity to get on it and get out of town before the other charges mount. This is hardball - and this administration has played it, too. More trains to follow - you can almost hear the whistles.

To: Lee who wrote (65244)	9/12/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Lee, Starr has at least four seperate mandates, I think the Hillarycare thing has also been given to him which would make five. Hillarycare = the secrecy under which the much ballyhooed Clinton healthcare plan was formulated. There should have been five seperate ICs, one each for Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, the healthcare thing and Monica. There was enough credible evidence in each case to appoint an IC. Why they saddled Starr with all of them is a whole other can of worms. Expect at least one more to look into the campaign contribution affair. My guess is that the President et al. didn't take the Monica thing seriously enough to make it worthwhile to make sure those who could damage him would willingly fall on their swords like Hubble and Mrs. McDougal. If the people with the info needed to convict someone refuse to tell what they know it is hard to convict. As to Whitewater, the Clintons' partners in the Deal have both been convicted. And she still refuses to answer the simple yes or no question about whether the President lied under oath in his deposition in that matter. If he didn't lie why was she willing to sit in jail for contempt to avoid saying "He didn't lie?"