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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (7024)	10/3/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Finger wagging denial, my little Christian brother? I don't make any "excuse of perjury", if indeed perjury took place. The matter of perjury is legally debatable, of course, according to Doug, but I don't care to debate it. I do not see alleged perjury, in the context of a private but politically motivated lawsuit about actions that took place before Clinton became President, as an impeachable offense. OK? I know this is all quite hard for you to understand. It also has nothing at all to do with my answer to your bizarre logic in denying that Starr initiated, or played a part in initiating, the Paula Jones suit, e.g. So let me get this straight: You think Starr initiated the Paula Jones lawsuit? Dude, Starr had never heard of Monica Lewinsky until Clinton lied about his involvement with her in that Jones suit, and Linda Tripp came forward with pretty convincing evidence that the President had perjured himself. And, as far as Tripp goes, you have to deal with her contradicting herself, under oath apparently, in consecutive sentences before Starr's grand jury: "In fact, I had never even thought about the independent counsel in my wildest dreams. 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." So, what position was Tripp anticipating here? Good friend and seeker after the truth that she evidently is? Oh, I see, you have to read this carefully, she was not thinking about Ken Starr in her wildest dreams, but in her rational schemes he was very much a presence. Daniel, while you apparently did find the squalid details of Clinton's sexual escapades in the Oval Office enjoyable and titillating reading, I did not, and never have I indicated such. You certainly do seem to enjoy attacking the President on his moral failings. Titillating, that was your word, I have no intention of reading the Starr report. Maybe you'd like to bring up your substantial, factual allegation of Bill Clinton's crack addition too? Or revive the Caligula thing?