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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (11730)	10/10/2003 11:01:37 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793939

Michael, if we are going to keep this going, you will need to provide some evidence as to the Daily Journal of Los Angeles; we will need to go into the great variety of interpretations of the Jones case; etc. But, suffice to say, the article you posted simply says the writer disagrees with the way the judge decided the case. Let me offer a few quotes, then let's move to other things. 1. Wright is incorrect to say that no jury could ever properly conclude that Clinton's saying that he knew Jones' boss and that she should not talk about what happened, "did not involve any coercion or threats of reprisal." 2. Wright is incorrect to say that this was "a mere sexual proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one..." 3. Wright is incorrect to say that Clinton's conduct "was abandoned as soon as plaintiff made clear that the advance was not welcome."