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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: asenna1 who wrote (120499)	1/1/2001 7:28:44 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It was not irrelevant. Because of the "Violence against Women Act of 1994", passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Clinton, Paula Jones was entitled to ask about Clinton's sexual activity (even if it was consensual) in order to establish a pattern of behavior. This law specifically empowers the accuser in a sexual harassment case to ask such questions, but it shields the accuser from having to answer such questions. Unfair? Perhaps. But is was Clinton's own law! It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress! This law was used to intimidate others in the private sector who were accused of sexual harassment in order to get them to settle out of court instead of going to trial. This was back in the good old days when Democrats were "out to get" sexual harassers in the wake of the Thomas-Hill battle of 1991. Doesn't it bother you liberals at all that Clinton feels free to inflict a law on everyone else, yet claims to be exempt from it himself? This was the essence of the impeachment argument, not the sexual activity itself. As far as the perjury aspect, in his January 1998 deposition, Clinton was given a very precise definition of "sexual relations": cnn.com You liberals like to make a joke about all of this, but it was a serious legal document, and it was a serious courtroom proceeding. In his August 1998 testimony, Clinton later laughed this off and said that he "misunderstood" the definition, and he thought that a "hands-off B.J." did not qualify. Well, a "hands-off B.J." does indeed qualify! The definition says "knowingly engages" (i.e., passive) in addition to "causes" (i.e., active). The definition also says contact with "any person" (i.e., including Clinton himself). One can only conclude that Clinton: 1) lied in January 1998 and lied again in August 1998 to claim that he "misunderstood". 2) is actually illiterate.