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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (10835)	3/16/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: John R Resseger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

MS Willey need not prove anything. She is a reluctent witness in a case she has no interest in. I remember being pretty quik at going from A. to B. to C. I think the sheer audacity of what BC did stunned MS Willey causing the delayed response. <<My original point, however, was merely that at the time Willey might have been willing, and even eager, to turn to another man for comfort.>> My wife does not consider that comforting. A hug or holding in ones arms yes.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (10835)	3/16/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: Triluminary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

How long do you think all this would take? Which did he do first? And why, if he did one thing before he did the others (and he can scarcely have fondled her breasts and held her hands--both?--to his genitals simultaneously) did she not object immediately? Janice you really should see the interview. Willey said Billy took her down to the pantry where he poured her a cup of coffee then walked her back to his private office. After a brief conversation Billy came over and gave her a hug while she was still holding the cup of coffee. At this point Willey didn't have a problem with the hug. She thought him merely to be consoling her. But according to Willey, Billy took the cup of coffee and placed it on a bookshelf. He then proceeded to kiss her on the mouth, fondled her, and then forced her to fondle him. IMO, total time elapsed for attempted kiss, fondle, and forced fondle... much, much less than a minute. It was then that Willey said she had to go and left. In her own words it was "unwelcome and unexpected". Please tell me how much time does the law require before one must say "Stop"? 1 millisecond? 1 Second? 10 Seconds? A minute? I'll tell you and I'm not even a stinking lawyer. NONE! If she did not want him to do it then it was at the very least harassment and probably closer to assault! These are the rules nowadays and if Billy was so for them in the first place he can damn well abide by them now.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (10835)	3/16/1998 12:51:00 PM
From: capitalistbeatnik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

You remind me of rape defense attorney Mike McMack played by Steve Martin on the old SNL.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (10835)	3/16/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

<<<Don't see any equivalency here. Willey claims he fondled her breasts, placed hher hands on his genitals. Presumably he also kissed her, which would account for the smudged makeup. How long do you think all this would take? Which did he do first? And why, if he did one thing before he did the others (and he can scarcely have fondled her breasts and held her hands--both?--to his genitals simultaneously) did she not object immediately? Were I cross-examining Willey on her story, these are some of the questions I'd ask. >>> And this is why Robert Bennett is the president's lawyer and you are not. The three things you mention have very little bearing on the case at all. How long something takes is not the point. Actually half of your questions would be objected to based on speculation alone. <<<My original point, however, was merely that at the time Willey might have been willing, and even eager, to turn to another man for comfort.>>> Further substantiating the label of "sexual predator" that has been slapped on the President. <<<You make accusations of the nature of the one's she's made, and you must expect that your story will be questioned. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused.>>> True, but I would expect better questions than the spurious ones that you have posted here.