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: dougjn who wrote (4763)	9/22/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

dougjn, Please, get real. It's not a reasonable reading of the definition, it's a tortured, totally counter to normal reasoning interpretation. But given that BC appears to be a tortured and abnormally reasoned person, let's give him his definition. According to ML testimony, he touched her breasts and genitals. They both can't be right. Somebody is committing perjury according to the tortured interpretation. I think a rational person would conclude that it is Bill Clinton. bp

To: dougjn who wrote (4763)	9/22/1998 6:42:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Respond to of 67261

Well, I personally don't buy it. Yes, I agree that Clinton claims in the GJ that inserting "other" out of nowhere was his interpretation. I think this is just his story concocted after-the-fact to try to avoid a perjury charge in the Jones case. Notice that the language of #2 and #3 specifically includes the phrases "the person" and "another person" when such a distinction is intended. So, why would #1 use an inconsistent wording if "another person" was really intended? I think it's very clear that "any person" means just that (including Clinton himself). Yes, #3 was excluded. But it doesn't overlap completely with #1. Notice that the phrase "with intent to arouse or gratify" is excluded from #3.