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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4383)	9/21/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

bp: You can reason until you are blue in the face. Reason has no place in the Clintonista view unless you come to the conclusion as doug has by stating his opinions as fact that Clinton deserves a pass. Trouble is there are a lot of people out there who may not look at the tapes and may buy this bs. JLA

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4383)	9/21/1998 7:03:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Re: transactional immunity. You're right BP. For the second I was thinking of use immunity. She got the full kind, transactional. Re: contemporaneous corroboration. Well, that's just the sort of thing that cross might very well blow apart. The touching details, and its extent, graphic detail, etc. Also, I've explained why I think she may have been kidding herself somewhat. I think that's quite plausible. And its quite plausible that a bit more happened than he remembered and a bit, or quite a bit, less happened than she remembered. The Pres. could also be flat out lying on that. Don't think you'd ever get a jury to convict on that. Given the understandable reasons for why the Pres. was revealing as little as he could, short of outright perjury, in the Jones questioning on Lewinsky. If a prosecutor wouldn't bring the case against an ordinary American, and a jury wouldn't convict even if he did. Should we consider it a high crime and throw him out of office? No way, Jose. Doug