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 (4710)	9/22/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Editing tapes, when she did not inform the OIC they were edited (and indeed perhaps claimed the opposite), could constitute obstruction of justice. Let's say (this is all hypothetical) she did indeed help create the "talking points", and that parts of the tapes revealed that. She then erases those parts. And then claims in her GJ testimony that she had nothing to do with the talking points. Under those circumstances, editing the tapes, if she claimed she had not, would constitute a direct withholding of evidence. Akin to Clinton himself not handing over gifts in his possession from Lewinsky. Nothing so ambiguous as hints that can be taken several ways, combined with a clear statement from Clinton to Lewinsky that she must turn over any subpoened evidence in her possession. Of course, a perfectly innocent explanation for editing on the tapes is also possible, for all I know. (Did the edits remove prior material that antedated the Lewinsky tapings entirely?) Doug

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4710)	9/22/1998 9:58:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

bp- The tapes are now irrelevant. You have her testimony and that of Lewinsky and of course the President's admissions so far as they go. The alleged illegality is that she told Starr and testified to the GJ the tapes were originals and had not been altered. If she so testified and if that is not true she has committed perjury. Even though that seems a minor matter, perjury is perjury and she should be punished if true. Let's censure her! JLA