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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (456495)	9/10/2003 6:27:13 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. Under the "Violence Against Women Act of 1994" Paula Jones (through her attorneys) was entitled to ask Clinton questions about his sexual behavior under oath to establish a "pattern of behavior" to support her suit. If you think this is prying, don't blame Ken Starr. Blame the Democrats who passed this law in 1994, and blame Clinton himself for signing it into law! Yes, Clinton lied about his affair with the intern named Monica Lewinsky. Yes, by all accounts that affair (with Monica) was consensual, i.e., it was not sexual harassment. However, Paula Jones was alleging sexual harassment in her case. Under the "Violence Against Women Act of 1994", Paula Jones was entitled to receive truthful testimony from Clinton about his affair with Monica even if it was a consensual affair. Again, the purpose would be to establish Clinton's "pattern of behavior" of having affairs in the workplace which gives more credence to Paula's suit. Now, are you trying to compare perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit to perjury in a divorce case? I don't think they are comparable. Being accused of sexual harassment is a far more serious issue, don't you think? I am sure that any private citizen who was accused of sexual harassment and provably committed perjury would be prosecuted just like Clinton was. But, I don't think too many private citizens were stupid/arrogant enough (like Clinton) to try this! As I mentioned in an earlier post, most corporate executives in Clinton's situation were smart enough to realize the law was stacked against them and they settled out-of-court.