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: Zoltan! who wrote (25977)	1/5/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Lets hope he's correct. However, knowing Slick as we do, the only way I can conceive of that happening (Slick resignation), without a conviction by the Senate, would be if the leading Senate Dems nailed down a deal with the leading Senate Reps to "ensure" Slick's resignation as part of an understanding to complete the much talked about censure agreement. But, why would the Dems want to do that? The whole idea of a censure agreement is so Slick avoids removal. Also, I don't think any of the Dems have gonads large enough to contemplate such an action against* Slick. That assumes that Slick is NOT part of, or the architect, of the "agreement" :-). Besides, the Reps have allowed themselves to be snookered by the Dems too many times over the past few years by trusting their word in numerous other "agreements". I think the Reps should stick strictly to the Constitution, try the SOB, convict his lying sorry ass and get him the hell out of the White House, along with his consort. If there's not enough votes for a conviction, fine. Record ALL votes by every Senator and we'll deal with them all next time they're up for election. The more I think about Lott and Daschell(sp?) doing a deal*, the more pi$$ed off I get! Sorry for venting... jim