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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ignacio Mosqueira who wrote (18909)	3/20/1998 1:15:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Ignacio, why would anyone give someone a ground level monitor, and more particularly, why would the President's attorney, who is very shrewd and seasoned, allow that to happen? And why would he not be able to answer the simplest question without reading his answers? Why could he not look up once in awhile? And do not forget that Willey did NOT come forth willingly at all. It was Linda Tripp who said something about Willey which attracted the attention of the Paula Jones investigators. And why would Linda Tripp testify under oath that she ran into Willey looking disheveled, her blouse untucked and her lipstick smeared, outside the Oval Office that day Willey met with the President? Why would the infamous talking points document be coaching Tripp to lie about Willey, to say that she now believed it was plausible that Willie untucked her own blouse and smeared her own lipstick? It is obvious to me that the White House MUST discredit Willey because Willey is otherwise an articulate woman, not a bimbo, the act was predatory, and it happened when she came looking for a job. At least this is the scenario that makes sense to me!! I don't think you know much about the way women respond to sexual harassment, either, Ignacio. It is quite normal to need to preserve the rest of the relationship with the harasser, and that is what Anita Hill and Kathleen Willey have in common. Willey was a liberal Democrat who liked the President''s policies, and also needed a job. Since she had not really worked recently, but was a large contributor to the party and had worked on campaigns, and she became a widow the same day she met with the President, and had children to take care of, it is very natural that she would have pushed what happened aside and continued on. She was trying to survive. If this did happen, it was the President, not Willey, who acted like a jerk. Why should she addtionally be punished in other ways? She had friends at the White House, a support group in a very stressful and sad time of her life. Saying she was the President's number one fan is hardly a big deal to me. Yes, it is possible that nothing happened that day, or that it was consensual. But I have seen enough of a pattern with Bill Clinton to be highly suspicious of him. Ignacio, this is a place you can say anything at all. Certainly it is interesting to speculate on all of this. But I sense that you don't understand that Ann Lewis, the White House communications director, attacked Willey's credibility the day after the CBS broadcast because Willie had written sweet notes and asked for a job afterwards. But it was Ann Lewis who defended Anita Hill, saying it was totally normal that a woman who had been sexually harassed would continue working for the harasser, spend time with him outside of work, and socialize with him after she had left his employ. So you can't have it both ways!! Christine