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: Les H who wrote (4649)	9/22/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Les, That column was written by one of the biggest hypocrites to every walk the earth. A few years ago when Dick Morris was exposed by a prostitute as one of her regular "dates" and one who chatted about national security matters with her, he was fired by Pres. Clinton. Now he spends his time on numerous TV talk shows condemning his former boss.........sounds like "sour grapes" to me. Ann

To: Les H who wrote (4649)	9/22/1998 1:50:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

The sense of certainty among lawyers that there is a clear case of perjury, either before the GJ or in the Jones deposition, was very much diminished after the Clinton GJ testimony was aired. Particularly the issue of GJ perjury. Quite weak and difficult case. The fundamental difference: he revealed that he had been intentionally as narrow as he could in answering questions in the Jones deposition. But perjury even in the Jones deposition now looks much less likely provable. The Pres. did an artful job there. Not without defect, but the defects aren't slam dunk. At all. Esp. given the very grave materiality issue. (Which isn't popular with the most extreme feminists, such as Gloria Allred.) The popular reaction to the tapes I think was mainly that the President didn't come off too badly under very difficult circumstances. And I think he also STARTED to make some inroads into explaining why he though he had some moral justification in engaging in narrow legalist answers, given the circumstances of the Jones case. But only started. Doug