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 (4764)	9/22/1998 6:58:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

BP, took a quick look at that area again. What Starr's report does not contradict, but hardly states or highlights, is that Clinton apparently had all the "suggestive" discussions with Bettie Currie almost immediately after the news hit the world about the Lewinsky affair, first through the Drudge internet report. But before Clinton knew of Starr's involvement in the Lewinsky matters, or that Bettie Curry was on a witness list. Clinton said he was trying to refresh his memory, and also said, his memory as to whether he and Lewinsky were ever truly alone, and whether Currie was always there. He also wanted to remember or learn exactly what Currie knew. I think the evidence largely supports that. No doubt some of the reason was he was trying to assess what he could and couldn't say, and what would internally leak, in the context of a massive press hunt for information. If there was some element of mild suggestion to his questions to Currie that occurred prior to her appearance on a witness list or even of Starr's involvement, it is perfectly plausible he was asking, and mildly suggesting, in the context of the press full press investigation and internal leaking. I've noticed nothing in the Starr narrative about Clinton's claimed final statements to Currie, before she was to testify. Clinton claimed in his testimony that he told her she should just tell the truth to the Grand Jury and to not worry about its effect on him. But Starr's omission of that does not tell me that she doesn't remember him saying it. After all, Starr left out a similar statement that has appeared in the transcripts of Lewinsky's testimony. And Lewinsky insisted on adding that, apparently. It seems like a very weak case for witness tampering to me. Very. Even without concurring testimony from Currie on the last. The fact that people say things to the effect that, of course someone like Clinton was too smart to simply tell people to lie, really doesn't make it. That's why he can't be convicted of doing so. Without extraordinary evidence, which cannot reasonable be interpreted as urging or demanding a certain story. Doug