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 (4981)	9/23/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You know doug, I pointed a very salient fact out to you before and you never responded to it. >>the Jones lawyers cleverly conceived of a way to thoroughly trap him with their bogus and frivolous harassment suit.<< When Clinton saw Monica Lewinsky's name on the witness list on Dec. 6, he had the option to settle the "frivolous" lawsuit and none of the ensuing illegal maneuvers he used would have been necessary, we would not be talking about Monica Lewinsky today, Linda Tripp or anyone else. He could have stopped the thing in it's tracks. I've concluded that he was blinded by his own arrogance in his ability to obstruct justice and "finess" the legal system with regard to the Jones lawsuit and thus did not take the most politically expedient course. What he didn't count on and had no way of knowing was physical evidence of the tapes that drew the OIC into the investigation of obstruction and eventually the semen stained dress which precluded him from continuing his "that woman" lie to the American people. Yeah, we have a real stooge here, and it's not Paula Jones. bp

To: dougjn who wrote (4981)	9/23/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<A very large part of the disgust, although usually little of the argument, among those that are disgusted with Clinton, is centered on his sexual transgressions, and hiding them from the light of day. Of course the prigs never admit this. Never do>> You have also accused his detractors of engaging in similar sexual behavior. You can't have it both ways. His political detractors don't care about the sex, they just want him out. His moral detractors are only concerned about the sex because it shows the lack of respect he has for women in general. The lying of course speaks for itself. You shouldn't profess to know what people are thinking. Your thought processes are so different from theirs that I doubt either side could possible understand the feelings of the other. <<He felt it vital to his political health to conceal his Lewinsky transgressions >> The ends don't justify the means. <<Linda Tripp may well have been recruited as well. >> Now who's a conspiracy theorist <g>. Using this kind of speculation, a case could easily be made for the guilt of the President regarding Whitewater, travelgate, etc. If you insist that one side must prove its allegations, you should stick with the same level of proof for your positions. <<Finding a stooge like Paula Jones>> Again, prove it. I'm not saying it isn't true, but you're being inconsistent in your requirements for proof. <<Some right wing media outlets>> The same could be said of the left-wing media outlets such as Salon. <<But this story has been utterly drowned out by the spectacle of a popular President being possibly brought down by a sex scandal with tinges of illegality>> I disagree with you here. From discussions that the media pundits have had on the talking head shows, the media is angry at Clinton for lying to them and abusing their trust. Apparently, the easiest way to piss off the media is to lie to them.