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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (4172)	9/21/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Those expletives were deleted from the tape. There were supposedly three. They're also redacted from the public report as well as two items that were supposedly national security items. They list what areas were redacted from the GJ testimony on the news sites. Some of the news sites, CBSNews, FoxNews, etc., have summaries of the tape so far and are easier to follow. He's contradcited himself on a number of issues, including the gifts, within the same deposition and has refused to answer questions by saying " I revert to the Jones deposition" or "I forgot". Murdoch's News Corp (NWS) has been under fire earlier this year because of the relatively very low tax they pay to the U.S., and of course, he wants to buy into more media companies here. Amazing that Florence Griffith-Joyner has died of her second heart attack at only the age of 38. Mark McGwire better be careful.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (4172)	9/21/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: lazarre	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<<hese are some of the questions I want to be answered: 1) Why has Rupert Murdoch(owner of the Fox TV Channels) had the most strident radical conservatives on his "talking head" programs?....more than any other network, his has been the most unrelenting in this vicious political assault on the duly elected leader of the free world. 2) Why has there been absolutely no mention of all the other "gates" so far? Most citizens were outraged by the accusations made in those episodes rather than the fact an older man fell for an aggressive young woman. 3) What part has the tobacco industry played in the onslaught? 4) What part has Mr. Mellon Scaife played?........those are just a few of my questions..........we need the answers.>>> Just a FEW of my many reasons why I pray the OIC statute will be permitted to run just one more time, Lord, just one more time. L

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (4172)	9/21/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

I think the Pres. has been helping himself enormously so far in the Grand Jury testimony tape. It is not at all clear that he has committed perjury so far in this tape. He has fully admitted that he tried to give the most limited testimony he could in the Jones deposition, and stated very, very well why he felt he was morally entitiled to do so. But that he strove to barely, technically avoid perjury there. I think this testimony gives his "no technical perjury" argument re: the Jones deposition a world of good. I think it will be much harder to ridicule that position going forward. He is, after all, now admitting that he sought to deceive. And certainly in the Grand Jury deposition he is admitting he sought to deceive the Jones lawyers. The technical issue gets down to whether he directly touched her naked skin with his in two locations. And it seems clear that at the least that did not generally happen. It also seems clear that his advice to Monica was to hid the affair generally, but when under oath, to try to avoid giving the Jones lawyers the info they wanted while remaining technically, arguable, truthful. Under the circumstances of the dragnet of the Jones lawsuit into areas they knew to be irrelevant as to their failing case, but helpful in harming the President when they leaked it, it seems quite understandable, morally. Anyway, I think he's helping himself quite a lot. So far, and including what I know about the other Starr evidence, I would not vote perjury re: the grand jury testimony if on a criminal jury. Basically, because I buy the idea that the President, while trying to mislead, admittedly, in the Jones deposition, was also trying to avoid a clear lie on the narrow facts. Which makes me somewhat sympathetic under all the circumstances. And I don't think there is any slam dunk that he did narrowly lie, as he, plausibly, read the definition. Doug