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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (28897)	1/20/1999 10:58:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 67261

LOL....they could have done better on her face. As your story points out, the magazine broke the Jones story. How did they get it? -By talking to all the witnesses who knew HER- just ONE PAULA. That writer you quote is cracked! There was no confusing who this Paula was- not by the involved parties. Word spread. They knew her. GEEZ! Is this too simple for you to see? They all could believe she went in there and did the man. How about her husband? She said nothing happened. Clinton could confirm- but no, he'd rather call Jones and other witnesses liars. When she didn't accept the pay-off, he then faced either going to court or openly remembering and exonerating her. Court would draw attention to the witnesses who confirmed his "bimbo" procurement activities. So he arranged to hide the recent evidence of his continued frolicking in the face of it all! He nearly got out of the 850,000 grand AND the apology. Who would help Jones but the folks who did? So what? She doesn't seem to be the political type to me, how about you? Really? NO! I'll be danged. Now circumstances which 80% of Americans believe are true(Clinton lied) dictate that Jones has been believed by most Americans- exactly the result she was seeking. As soon as she got that, she was willing to settle. It makes sense by her stated desire- wholly consistent it is. So you should be able to comprehend that prior attempts to settle don't crack my argument at all. What Clinton tried to do to her remains unrefutted by your argument. I repeat, without this evidence, she would still NOT be beleived by but a few, and she'd now have no settlement either. Had she taken the pay-off the Carvilles of the world would have gone on explaining that it didn't mean she wasn't lying- hahaha.... You're argument attempts to punish her for wanting it understood that she didn't do anything when alone with him- it's nothing more than an element of Clinton's slander revisited. Give it up- it's failed on this issue. >>here were apparently other attempts to settle too. But I wouldn't want to disturb your personal theory on the matter. We're all stupid, and you're not, right?<< LOL We just disagree! As Dave Mason wrote..."there ain't no good guys...there ain't no bad guys... there's only you and me and we just disagree". Daniel, that particular charge you end with is ALWAYS available to either side... . As if you don't sound like you think WE(whoever that is!) are all wrong. Come on, you can do better than that.