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 (30654)	1/28/1999 5:45:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Im sure they check out any story on this topic these days. If you look at the steely look of determination on the House Manager's faces it becomes clear that the final card has not yet been played. I'm sure that during the witness depositions they are going to trot out all sorts of innuendos from Starr's unshown files and try to surprise the witnesses. It won't matter if it is relevant, they just want to get more documents into evidence so that maybe someone will say What's this all about and buy them time to try to dig something else up. TP Are there any stock picks relating to private investigator firms? Must be a hot field right now.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (30654)	1/28/1999 5:50:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yep, and the fact that there were four corroborating witnesses and Brokaw threatened to quit if it were aired was totally inconsequential to the whole thing. No substance at all. The quick rejection of the need to consider Juanita's story is certainly consistent with the systematic lowering of the personal convictions by clinton supporters. How many times have I heard over the last year, "Well, if it were (fill in the blank) I would certainly want him thrown out." Only to see the same folks become forgetful when such things surfaced one after another. There really is nothing left. So, you may as well admit it. You don't even want to know. There are no limits, standards, principles left. Hail to the party leader. Right?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (30654)	2/23/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, >>>The fact that NBC news interviewed Broderick means nothing <<< Are all these women making stories up about the President of the United States. There is Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Broderick, Browning, Gracen, and a few others. It is one thing to say that lying about having sex is not an impeachable offense - but it is something else to say that all these women are lying. Usually when a male uses his station in life, especially in an authority position, to hit on women in subordinate positions, these guys are smart enough to not have eyewitness around that may testify against them. In most case, these authority figures are in control of the environment where they are hitting upon these women and live cameras are not goiong to be turned on to the action where it could be used against them. It is usually very difficult for women with any power to prove sexual harrassment or rape by people in positions of power. The only type of proof that these women may have is to show a pattern of behavior on the part of the perpetrator. What would it take for you to believe that Bill Clinton's behavior toward certain types of women, especially the one's named above, are criminal? Sincerely, Mary Cluney