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: Dan B. who wrote (18803)	12/12/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't know, my take was always STOP THE INSANITY! Who ruled that the Jones case may have been materially affected? Starr? It's not his place to rule. As for the settlement, similar terms were offered before all this stuff came up. Lawsuits get settled all the time, with no admission of fault. The legal bills in the Jones suit dwarf the size of the settlement, on both sides. One article I read said that Clinton settled because they were afraid, from the oral argument, that they would lose their appeal. Your assertion that no negotiations would have taken place until the appeal was decided is just that, an assertion, and an uninformed one from what I know about the case. As to the last sentence, that's for American Women to decide for themselves. I would guess, offhand, that you have political views that are an affront to many American women. I know for a fact that the moral reformation wing of the Republican party, that's in the lead on the impeachment effort, has such views, particularly on abortion.