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: DMaA who wrote (30822)	1/29/1999 2:07:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

From the McLaughlin Group Jan. 16, 1999 John McLaughlin- Number three, and the last one: national security recklessness. On March 29th, 1997, protracted sexual interaction between Lewinsky and Clinton took place that yielded the blue dress DNA. And if her testimony is to be believed, it gives the lie to Clinton's defense about the nature of the intimacy between them. After the dalliance, according to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the president had a lengthy conversation that day. He told her that he suspected that a foreign embassy -- he did not specify which one -- was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories. If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along and the phone sex was just a put-on. Foreign affairs columnist Jim Hoagland, who writes for the Washington Post, in this instance last Wednesday (sic), he calls this sexual affair reckless and irresponsible. It made our commander in chief, he says, a target for blackmail by foreign powers, which was a betrayal of his oath to protect the national security. So the question that Senate jurors may wish to ask themselves is: Has Mr. Clinton, in his national security vigilance, exhibited such irresponsibility, such recklessness, as to render him unfit for office?

To: DMaA who wrote (30822)	1/29/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

I think that is covered in the 3rd post I had on McLaughlin.

To: DMaA who wrote (30822)	2/25/1999 10:47:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

He set himself up as a big fat stupid target for blackmail. One of the things that invalidates blackmail is whether the target is all that worried if the information is reported. I'm sure if a phone sex conversation were intercepted that Clinton would deny it and try to suppress it, but I am confident that that would be the end of it. The bugger would have to call the bluff, and if it were a foreign agent or something they would get prosecuted (and Clinton would apologise for the incident and gain overwhelming popularity). The dog just can't hunt. TP