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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (7917)	9/13/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: J. M. Blackburn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

In addition: >>As for the perjury issue, I think that Clinton believed what he was saying when he told us that his testimony was legally accurate.<< If this is what he really believed, how can anyone make an agreement with him and understand what the agreement really means?? Does he speak a new legal language that means only what he thinks it means and not what the norm would. How in God's name can he carry on the governments business with thinking like this? His word means nothing and anyone doing business with in is going to know it. JMB

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (7917)	9/14/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Re: rich, how do you reconcile the president affirming monica's false affidavit as being "absolutely true?" I don't know. When he made the statement, in his speech, about his testimony being "legally accurate", I had the definite feeling that he believed what he was saying. Yet, when he said that his actions with Monica Lewinsky were wrong, I had the feeling that he didn't believe what he was saying. So, I don't know, maybe I am reading too much into my impressions of the speech, or maybe he had forgotten about the statement you are referring to. One thing I am sure of, and that's that we are dealing with a fallible human being (is there any other kind?) who was trying to find some way of dealing with the impossible situation that he was put in by the Jones lawsuit, without committing political suicide. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it's obvious that he failed in that.