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: greenspirit who wrote (7531)	10/1/1998 2:22:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Hi Michael D. Cummings; The cigar is part of the "he said, she said" testimony, though it could also be described as "he said, they said." Already, my left-wing ex-girl friend asked me if I thought that Lewinsky was a plant (i.e. a spy, rather than a vegetable). (If Lewinsky was a plant, she'd have avoided perjuring herself, she would have gotten better evidence, and anyway, the planters would have chosen someone even more pretty than her.) Right now, it is possible for Clinton supporters to believe him with respect to what he touched. They can think of it as a "he said, she said" kind of thing, even though what she said is supported by what she contemporaneously told all her buddies, while he (apparently) kept quiet, and lied to his buddies about what happened. Were it not for the blue dress, I myself might have difficulty voting to convict. After all, maybe the girl is a little crazy and made it all up. But the dress drags us back into the realm of what is known to be true. It forces Clinton to have to come up with the most extravagant explanations for his testifying. Without the dress, Clinton could deny everything, and it would all look like "he said, she said." It is clear to me that that is what he planned on doing. It would have been a much easier to believe story, one with consistency, and naturalness. The girl fooled herself into believing something happened while the President was counseling her. It makes a certain amount of sense. She was overcome with admiration, and, being under the care of a psychologist (who, by the way, is one of the many people to whom she related her actions,) she is obviously prone to delusions. Maybe the psychiatrist asked her to fantasize about what she did with the President. But with the dress, it cannot be all a fantasy. Instead, if we wish to believe the president, we are forced to reject parts of Lewinsky's testimony. But the parts we are forced to accept do not seem much different from the parts we reject. How could she have known, in advance, how to skip around the definition of sex that the Jones lawyers would use? His description of their activities is so bizarre, it doesn't make sense, in that he claims she touched him while he never touched her. This is so out of step with the way that we all understand human sexuality. It is impossible to understand. Her version I understand. The cigar stuff isn't all that kinky. But having someone service you while you never even stroked them back, that is something that I cannot understand. How can lovers meeting each other in friendship and lust act like that? What man over the age of 40 would be able to resist the temptation to touch the skin of such a nicely complexioned young lady, given that he was close enough to her to allow himself to orgasm in her presence, and by her touch? His story is far more kinky than hers. So I believe her, and therefore he was the one that lied under oath to the grand jury. -- Carl

To: greenspirit who wrote (7531)	10/1/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

You're right; I do remember now the questioning in the video testimony about "using an object to stimulate those areas...would that constitute sex, as you believe the Jones court defined sex?" To which the President replied that yes, it would. Then the investigators told him what Monica said about the cigar...of course, Monica also said a lot more, and the IC investigators asked Clinton if he would say Monica was lying...to which of course the President refused to answer...but it's plain that his testimony contradicted Monica's. One of them is a liar. If Congress has to decide who has more credibility, Clinton or Monica, I think they will have to ask, who has lied more in the past? Monica lied in her affidavit. One lie. Clinton lied 1) In his deposition, which was more in-depth and lengthy than Monica's affidavit. He lied many many times just in his deposition. 2) Clinton went on TV to lie in an adamant denial of a "sexual relationship, or any inappropriate relationship, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". 3) Clinton lied through his spokesmen Mike McCurry. 4) Clinton lied to his Cabinet members, who then publicly repeated and underscored their support of his lie. At that point, the entire Executive Branch was effectively trying to force a lie down the throat of the American people, while continuing to undermine the Justice Dept. This was really the biggest lie that I think has ever been foisted on the American people, even if it was just about sex. The capacity and willingness of this administration to execute a wholesale deception is quite apparent.