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: Bilow who wrote (7030)	10/3/1998 10:32:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Once I saw a stupid minor traffic accident. A car was rear-ended. I was in a position to see that the car in front had caused the accident by changing lanes without signaling. I stopped and gave my business card to the inhabitants of both cars so that they could call me as a witness. I know that I set myself up for some inconvenience, but I like to imagine that there would be someone out there to ensure that I receive justice from the courts when I need a witness someday. I see Tripp's actions as similar. She did what was right in the face of a huge number of reasons to avoid doing so. What you did and what Tripp did are not remotely similar, to my mind. What you did was laudable. What Tripp did was at a minimum a venal, mean spirited stalking of a vulnerable young woman. A premeditated utter trashing of a young life for her own gain, and sort of vindication against certain types of men. The later isn't pretty. But what is really ugly is the amount of harm she was willing to cause Lewinsky, through utter deception, to achieve her base aims. What Tripp did to Lewinsky was far, far worse than anything Clinton did to Lewinsky. (Actually, I think Lewinsky was the real actor in the Clinton / Lewinsky drama. She saw her shot, his weakness, and she took it. She of course had her own problems.) That's at a minimum. At a very plausible middle level of interpretation of the facts we have now, Tripp set out through a pretend friendship and concerted girl talk to either discover Lewinsky in, or if necessary goad, Lewinsky into, a bookable, and destroyable, sexual affair with the President from the get go of their "friendship." It may well have been a greed and resentment for Tripp, and greed and political revenge for Goldburg, set up from the very beginning of Tripp's Pentagon "befriending" of Lewinsky. And who was Goldberg emailing to and phoning before this developed?? Trip was, after all, a most logical resource to work. Especially when Lewinsky ended up in the same "kick upstairs" (salary wise) Pentagon dumping ground for White House low level staffers. Doug

To: Bilow who wrote (7030)	10/3/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

But Bilow, I didn't ask why Tripp recorded those tapes. I just pointed to an apparent contradiction in her testimony. She was getting ready to testify under oath, but she never gave a thought to Starr. Just like Clarence Thomas never, ever gave a thought to Roe v. Wade, before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. On the question of perjury, considering the context, I don't consider it an impeachable offense, as in "Treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Others differ, as is their right. Watergate, bimbogate, they both start with Republican dirty tricks. It's just politics. I'm not the one on a moral crusade here. Of course, it's in character with the whole twisted thing for me to be accused of moralizing, just as to say anything bad about Starr's long running smear campaign is to engage in smear tactics.