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 : Ask John Galt... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ignacio Mosqueira who wrote (3591)	2/7/1998 10:20:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4006

Ignacio, it is hard to answer your post objectively, because I already suspect that President Clinton's problems have much more to do with a pattern of serious illegal activities like federal banking felonies that go all the way back to the 1970's in Arkansas. I do not believe Monica Lewinsky has much to do with it at all, except that she is apparently at least the third woman who worked for Clinton, or wanted to, and ended up in a sexually involved in some way. Because Monica is young, seemingly not very emotionally stable after a difficult if privileged childhood where her father was stern and did not give her enough love and approval, and her parents divorced, and is very open about whatever is happening in her life, she was sort of an accident waiting to happen for this president. I believe he exhibited very bad judgment if he had a relationship with her, and to me a string of relationships with, allegedly, hundreds of women is very much different than discreetly having a mistress or something. nypostonline.com Clinton seemed to take advantage of his power as an employer or potential employer to sexually harass women, and that PATTERN of harassment is what caused the attorneys for Paula Jones to be able to question the president about Monica Lewinsky. I am not sure that this is correct on your part--"As far as I understand the law it is only perjury if it is material to the case at hand." I am not an attorney, but as far as I know, any lying under oath is perjury. It is true that perjury in civil cases is not usually prosecuted as a crime, and perhaps this might be the root of a possible misunderstanding. There is definitely some unseemly titillation in most people who are following these events, but I think is makes them uncomfortable more than excited. I am personally angry that the president apparently has conducted his life in a way which has caused this all to become public. I can pretty much promise you that most parents in America did not want to have to explain the concept of oral sex to young children who were watching the news. I guess what I am trying to say, Ignacio, is that what I think Clinton might be most guilty of is perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, not only as it relates to Monica Lewinsky but for a very long period of time. It doesn't really have much to do with just sex. Being close to power is admittedly compelling, Ignacio. But even if I were not already in a monogamous relationship, I think I could resist the seduction of a man who simply wanted me to service him sexually. I cannot imagine being in a one-sided affair like that. But you were very clever to throw in the saga of the needy children!!!