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 (5257)	9/24/1998 9:21:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Interesting that Monica never claimed he boinked her. Also never claimed he performed on her. Wonder why she claimed he "diddled" her. Looks like if she was going to lie, she would claim he did everything. Should be fun to watch this play out. Thanks for your input. alan w

To: dougjn who wrote (5257)	9/25/1998 11:16:00 AM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Again, I don't think Clinton's interpretation of "any person" as meaning "any other person" is reasonable. Clinton also seems to emphasize only the "causes" (i.e., active) part of the definition instead of the "knowingly engages" (i.e., passive) part of it. Yes, in the Grand Jury, that is what he claimed was his interpretation, but this is only a very lame attempt to avoid a perjury charge in my opinion. Any reasonable interpretation of the definition would include "hands-off" oral sex performed on Clinton because he "knowingly engaged" in the specified contact and because "any person" includes Clinton himself. This is especially true given Clinton's legal training, and the fact that the stricken parts of the definition (#2 and #3) use the distinct phrases "another person" and "the person" when such a distinction is intended.