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: Grainne who wrote (3596)	2/8/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Ignacio Mosqueira	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4006

Its very simple Christine, sex by itself (whether on the job or not should be irrelevant) does not consitute a pattern of misbehavior of any sort. The law should never have allowed the prosecution to interrogate the president about Lewinsky without some reasonable expectation that harrassment may have been involved. The facts do not support that allegation as far as I can see. If later on you wish to investigate whether Lewinsky received special or unfair treatment of some sort as a result of her relationship with the president then that should be a separate case completely independent of the Jones case until a link is found. A loosey-goosey pattern of some sort is not a link. Sexual appetite is not a crime Christine. You should not have voted for him if you thought it was. There is nothing new here.