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 (22317)	12/18/1998 6:56:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

But the case is settled. Jones could have held out. She had plenty of backers to pay the lawyers. Those backers were not the kind to be motivated by Paula's psychological trauma induced by a unitary vision. There was a different goal in mind. As for what's admissible and what's not, I don't know, and I don't really care, given the political motivation lurking behind the case right from the start. I think the most long lasting damage from this whole circus may be the precedent of harassing a sitting president through civil litigation. Never happened before, but now there are all kinds of court rulings saying it's cool. Again, your concern for truth and justice is touching. So what I didn't answer BOB's response to Dipy, or your restatement of it. I get mostly derision from the right no matter what I post, has BOB proven himself deserving of more respect? Or is this the Limbotic thing again, where it only cuts one way?

To: Dan B. who wrote (22317)	12/18/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<<<Dan, the Judge, then the Supreme Court, both ruled that the evidence was admissable. Now the federal appeals court has ruled that the evidence missing due to the perjuries may have had a material effect on the outcome- the dismissal. How often does that get prosecuted? ALWAYS! It's EXACTLY the sort of perjury that gets prosecuted. Without this evidence of perjury, and the subsequent belief of Clinton that the dismissal would have been overturned upon appeal, there would have been no settlement. Without this evidence of perjury, there may have been no appeal at all! As I say, Clintons perjury very nearly save him 850grand. . >>> Dan, you'll learn soon enough that waving facts in front of a wild-eyed liberal wacko is senseless but fun as hell. I like watching them contort when facts smack them right between the eyes. The idea of Klinton's perjury not being material to the outcome of the trial was summarily smashed to bits a long time ago.