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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5693)	9/27/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Oh give me a break!!! If Clinton hadn't been squirting sperm all over the Oval Office, SNL wouldn't have this material!!! And the commercial about MasterCard, if Clinton hadn't been doing what he was doing with a cigar SNL wouldn't have had that commercial to do!!! Starr's not the one that put sperm all over the Oval Office. Your buddy did and it's disgusting!!! NEVER before has SNL had this type of subject to create skits with!!! They found a way to be funny about Reagan's naps and things about Bush but never something like this!!!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5693)	9/27/1998 8:29:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I see it differently, as does the Starr report, Michelle, on why the report had to contain graphic specifics on sexual acts. It was because the President chose, with careful aforethought, to deny that he had legally been untruthful under oath. It was this ridiculous insistence that landed the details in the Starr report. And even now, the President's version of the specific graphical details differs greatly from Monica's testimony. So you know that if the Starr report had NOT had those details from Monica, you and every other Clinton sympathizer would be crying that there was no evidence that Clinton was being untruthful. In fact, Clinton himself in his video testimony criticized repeatedly the Jones attorneys for "not asking follow-on questions", for "not asking for more specifics". In fact, Clinton ridiculed the ineptness of the Jones attorneys. So your continual harping on "judgement" and "discretion" is misleading at best, and is a simple attempt to twist the facts into something that fits your political goals.