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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (24552)	12/18/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116972

e...I find your posts quite sound usually, but i have to disagree with the following: >>What's forgotten here is that so far we've only heard the case for the prosecution, party line votes have made sure of that. << It is my distinct impression that BC's spokespeople as well as BC himself have had more airtime to defend their side publicly than Starr, et. al,. have but yet they(BC) won't gve straight answers: 1.Conress sent BC a list of over 80 questions asking for his side of the story(he evaded any yes or no answers). 2.Even the Dems believe and have stated that he lied. 3.The Republicans would not vote to impeach if he just admitted that he lied. 4.If there is no way Starr, et. al. could ever convict him, why not just admit the truth and avoid this costly charade?

To: Enigma who wrote (24552)	12/18/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116972

enigma: You won't see any serious defense mounted by Clinton that he did not commit perjury. If he had one he would not have utilized the tactic of attacking Starr and outing the Republican bad boys. Can anybody in Washington keep his zipper up??? I turned toward the view that Clinton was clearly guilty, when it became obvious that his tactic was to try everyone else but himself. You are falling for the oldest sucker tactic in the trial lawyer's manual. If you don't have a credible defense, try someone else. The crazy thing is the American people don't see it. As for the so called experts that say the perjury case is weak, they are just Clinton apologists. I don't know of any lawyer that I respect that thinks it is would be that difficult a case. There is just too much corroborating evidence that he lied intentionally, and as I stated above, I believe that if he had a real defense, we would have heard it by now. Live long and prosper, Little joe