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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (7114)	9/27/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

How interesting, Carl. Good job in digging that up. I was wondering about that. Clearly Mr. Bennett said in court, "there is no sexual relationship in any way, shape, or form, between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky". Incidentally, HRC said virtually the same thing in the Matt Lauer interview back on Jan. 28th. Now she has shamelessly decided that although she said back in January that if such allegations proved to be true, that would be "a very serious issue", now she says that Congress get off the subject of her husband and get back to "the issues that matter to America--evidently she thinks that perjury is commonly accepted everywhere. Anyway, when one of the GJ investigators asked Bill in the videotaped testimony about his silence when his attorney William Bennett told a blatant falsehood about him to the Jones court, Bill Clinton mumbled something about "I didn't follow each and every exchange between the attorneys and the Judge". In other words, "I was sitting there stupidly, not paying attention". Not very likely, particularly in the Slickster's case.

To: Bilow who wrote (7114)	9/27/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Re: perjury in the Jones deposition. Take a look at this, if you haven't already seen it: exchange2000.com There's also the matter of the immateriality of his Lewinsky testimony in the Jones case. That alone defeats the notion of criminal perjury. I think perjury in his GJ testimony really is a very large stretch in two of the (only) three cases Starr claims (which probably are not what you think they are). And in the one remaining case become a very narrow and extremely detailed issue of exact sexual contact. Which is exclusively he said, she said. Not a very important or material distinction. And would never lead to a perjury case in a court of law---unless, perhaps the jury absolutely HATED the defendant. Which may be the nub of it here.<g> Doug