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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27325)	1/12/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Only when your husband's Governor and handing out tax payer goodies to your benefactor. In that case, yes you are corrupt. People are getting 100x returns on these internet stocks - I suppose they are all corrupt?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27325)	1/12/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

That's called plausible deniability. She lied about various aspects about the account. Same thing when you coach a witness such as "you remember blah. blah. blah....etc." when you know very well that scenario never occurred. The effect and the intent is the same as telling someone to lie in court.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27325)	1/14/1999 2:08:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 67261

She publicly contradicted herself as to her involvement in trading decisions. How could she remember picking the trades herself, then suddenly no, she had no hand in the trading? What kind of memory is that? Did this smart lawyer just spaz out and publicly recount a dream detrimental to her case as truth- only to correct the record later? This remains unreconcilable. Smoking gun evidence that should normally exist conveniently disapeared. Do you realize that she did make the statements as I've related them? It simply doesn't leave room to imagine that your/her final explanation is plausible, now does it?