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: Trippi who wrote (7256)	9/28/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

>>Wright's ruling that Monica Lewinsky was not material to the case will stand. Absolutely wrong! Wright never stated any such thing about "materiality". She agreed to Starr's request to separate the Jones and Lewinsky matters. >> The case is bogus and Paula Jones will not win it if it ever sees a court room again. Wrong. Clinton's perjury will probably lead to a directed verdict if there is no settlement. >>The reason Clinton would want the case settled is that Judge Wright can still hit him with "contempt of court" charges as long as the case is still making its way through the appeals process Wrong. Settlement will not obviate the Court's jurisdiction over Clinton's perjury. Contempt is a very unusual penalty, prison is the norm. And Starr is ready to indict him when he leaves office. Ah, justice. >>The President will serve out his term Only if the Republicans want to keep him there. There is no doubt the Dems will want him gone after November. Clinton defines his party and they will never live him down.

To: Trippi who wrote (7256)	9/28/1998 6:21:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< can we agree that if Larry has all this great killer stuff that Ken Starr didn't find >> We don't know what Starr has found on Filegate or Travelgate, and the other issues addressed in Klayman's report were not issues being investigated by Starr. Just out of curiosity, have you read Klayman's report yet? I just started, and it's actually very interesting. I don't know how tight the arguments are or how good the evidence is, but it still makes for interesting reading. If there is a lack of validity there, I'm sure that will be brought to light soon on the various talking head shows. <<Maybe I should ask Larry about this next time we're on.>> Do you have some special standing on these shows? You give the impression that you are a regular on the TV shows.