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: Neocon who wrote (32011)	2/4/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 67261

re: your question to Daniel: Why do you keep harping on peripheral matters that are at least as unproven as you claim the obstruction charges are? He does it for the same reason that all of the Clinton partisans do. The proof of Clinton's crimes is so obvious that his defenders cannot legitimately argue from "No...," but must resort to arguing "Yes, but..." -BLT

To: Neocon who wrote (32011)	2/4/1999 4:23:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't think the President should have been dragged into that particular civil deposition in the first place. How is that peripheral? The whole Jones suit was a Republican political dirty trick right from the start. Or do you want to explain again about how "guileless" Paula Jones just had to clear her good name from the Arkansas trooper story (fales, right? If you believe Jones?) story planted with Brock by Smith and Porter? The precedent of dragging the President into a stupid civil suit like that, validated by the Supreme Court, may be the worst thing to come out of this mess. Balance that against the end of the IC law, hard to say if we're coming out ahead or not.