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: Eric Hong who wrote (4346)	9/21/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

One of the things which Clinton suggested in his GJ testimony is that maybe Jones's lawyers didn't follow up on a number of questions, even though sometimes Bennett invited them to, is because they didn't want to give Clinton a requirement to answer fully. I.e., they thought they had just trapped him. (Having already had the Tripp tapes, although the President didn't know that, and they knew he didn't know that.) And didn't want to push so far as to force him to either unambiguously lie, or actually reveal the full truth. Could just be. Certainly if the Jones lawyers had gone beyond the definition and asked, President Clinton, did Monica ever Lewinsky perform oral sex on you, he would have been faced with the choice: Perjury, or reveal the truth about his relations with Lewinsky. That is, if the Judge forced him to answer. Perhaps the reason they didn't is that direct a question would have tipped Clinton off that they had some real proof of what had actually happened, and they were trying to trap him. And he would then have let it all spill out, rather than committ perjury. Very possible, seems to me. Doug