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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (6849)	10/3/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 67261

Hi Daniel Schuh; About that Tripp statement: "In fact, I had never even thought about the independent counsel in my wildest dreams." In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we have no choice but to believe Tripp when she claims that her dreaming had other subjects than the independent counsel. In fact, given the polls, I suspect that her "wildest dreams" had the POTUS as the subject. (I hope that my joke has been recognized as such by the reader... If not, think of the President's explanation of his perjury. Linda's explanation for the above is a lot easier to believe. She could claim to be speaking the literal truth.) Regarding: "My idea was I'm going to arm myself with records so when I'm in a position to speak under oath, I can do so truthfully.". I really don't know what this one means, other than what I posted above... -- Carl

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (6849)	10/3/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 67261

Hi Daniel Schuh; I had this feeling of guilt over answering your post with irony... So here goes again. You wrote: Carl, who was she going to speak to under oath, if not Starr? I think it is obvious that Linda Tripp figured that eventually she would be talking to the Jones lawyers regarding the sexual harassment case. After all, that is what the Lewinsky deposition was all about, and that is what she had knowledge of perjury regarding. Her testimony makes perfect sense, and doesn't require much in the way of imagination to understand. Maybe she planned on impeaching the testimony of her "friend", Lewinsky, if she perjured herself in that deposition. Later, the decision to hand the tapes to Starr came. At the time she made the recording, the Starr investigation was not investigating Lewinsky. I hope that explains her testimony a little better. The truly amazing thing is that Lewinsky seemed to tell half the world about her relationship with the President. They must have all realized that she was perjuring herself in her affidavit, but only one person dropped a dime on her. -- Carl