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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (19597)	8/22/2002 9:13:43 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Nice summary jla. The thing that really was irksome to me was the persistent argument that the questions shouldn't have been asked. Here was somebody who, setting aside his office for a moment, was accused (not once but numerous times) of sexually harassing women. He was usually in a position of power over those women, or at least in a general position of power. Finally, one of those women sued. Which they have a right to do, a right which (incidentally) the President's party was instrumental in supporting over the years. He was asked questions about a pattern and practice of similar behavior over the years. If such a pattern and practice existed (and there sure seems to be at least some evidence that it did), it is relevant to the lawsuit that was brought. That is the contextual background of the lies in question. The fact that there were people "out to get" Mr. Clinton is true. But there are always people "out to get" the President. That doesn't give him free license to grab some boob or wave his privates in the face of women he finds attractive (and in some cases he apparently went on to affect their job status). IMO the questions were entirely appropriate in that context. As for whether he committed perjury, this is a man who testified, under oath, that he couldn't even remember being alone with Ms. Lewinsky ("that woman"), then when his DNA remembered, his story changed. If that isn't proof of perjury, perjury has never happened in history. I actually find this issue helpful in a labelling sense. Those who argue that he didn't lie are obviously blind partisans and can be put on mental ignore.