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: Bill who wrote (9123)	10/12/1998 9:27:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes, and your posts prove that you are a firm believer in facts and substance. Not to mention the depth of your non-partisan love. Mr. Bush said he had asked Mr. Walsh to provide him with a copy of his testimony to the prosecutor, which he would make public. Which testimony to which prosecutor might Mr. Bush have been referring to? Walsh argued that some of these notes would have had to be furnished to Weinberger. They could have led not only to President Bush being called as a witness but to his prosecution for perjury. You may interpret this as you wish, Mr. Facts and Substance. I would interpret it as meaning that Walsh thought he had on record testimony from Bush that he could force Bush to admit was false, under further questioning. Hey Schuh, I thought you told me President Bush HAD ALREADY BEEN CALLED as a witness. It's clear from your own post that, as president, he hadn't. Not a hint of a lie and not a hint of an impeachable offense. I don't know what this "as president" thing has to do with anything. Aside from that, the "not a hint of a lie" is a bit of a stretch, interpretation wise.