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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flickerful who wrote (27622)	9/12/1998 5:50:00 PM
From: Philipp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94695

OT Clinton OT Both the first and the second rebuttal of the Starr report are astonishingly week in legal terms (I doubt that Kendall et al. would be able to pass a bar exam with it). Of course, they know that they could not win their case in a court of law; they are just trying to win in the court of public opinion. They might well do that, though I think that it is an extremely high-risk strategy. A bit of honesty at an earlier stage or at the August testimony, their last opportunity to come clean with at least a shred of decency, would have been much better. The negative reaction to Clinton's August "confession speech" showed that the American public is not quite as naive and gullible as Kendall et al. believe. Regards, Phil

To: flickerful who wrote (27622)	9/12/1998 5:52:00 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 94695

S. V. P.--- Subject 22824

To: flickerful who wrote (27622)	9/12/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: Joseph G.	Respond to of 94695

PR job, and a lousy one at that. He should've hired some experienced and knowledgeable lawyers, who, between other things, could've told him what's right and what's wrong, and that giving false testimony under oath is a high crime. Should've taken the 5th.

To: flickerful who wrote (27622)	9/12/1998 6:04:00 PM
From: William H Huebl	Respond to of 94695

Flick, That is all posturing for the legal battle. The Prez is going to win the battle and lose the war. Bill Besides, would YOU take a lollypop from THAT man??? The idea of it!

To: flickerful who wrote (27622)	9/13/1998 5:52:00 AM
From: Dipsey	Respond to of 94695

OT flickerful Noted is the fact that the White House paper does not deny any of the content of the OIC report as being other than factually correct. Their position seems to be that a) it contains too many personal intimate revelations and b) the transgressions of the President are insufficient to impeach. Bear in mind, the OIC only created the report; the House, by a vote of 363 to 63 voted to make it public. This is hardly a right wing conspiracy. Attacking the OIC further is liable to backfire on them; essentially they are attacking the House. The truth is that the report does appear to offer credible and substantial evidence that multiple felonies were committed. Impeachment proceedings are called for in order to put the matter to rest. Regards, Dipsey