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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (1470)	9/25/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1533

In that case, there was an "underlying crime", i.e. tax evasion. Just as there as an "underlying crime", i.e. burglary, in the Nixon case. In this case, there was no underlying crime, unless you think the laws still state that adultery is a crime. Even if you point to the allegations in the Paula Jones suit as the underlying crime here, you must keep in mind that that lawsuit was thrown out. So there was NO underlying crime here. And that is a very very very big difference. End of story. Dipy.