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: Grainne who wrote (12070)	3/24/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Good one. Today's NYT's agrees with the WSJ with TWO editorials: March 24, 1998 LAW IN THE CLINTON ERA The Abuse of Privilege, Again Even if it is a time-buying tactic, President Clinton's decision to invoke executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation cannot be lightly regarded as one more legal maneuver in an unpleasant case that has seen no shortage of posturing by all sides. Mr. Clinton's attempt to block grand jury testimony by two important White House aides, Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal, is an alarming attempt to extend Presidential power. Moreover, this alarm has a familiar ring. In contending that his discussions with his aides about the Lewinsky matter can be shielded, Mr. Clinton is following the discredited strategy that President Nixon used in the Watergate investigation a quarter-century ago. The Supreme Court in the Nixon tapes case correctly reserved executive privilege for weighty official dealings, involving national security and other core areas of Presidential decision-making. Whatever Mr. Clinton did with Ms. Lewinsky -- and whatever Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Blumenthal said to him about the Lewinsky case -- clearly amounts to an issue of personal conduct and liability, rather than one of Presidential duty or national security. Mr. Clinton and his lawyers are aware of these precedents. Only last year, in a case involving notes of discussions Hillary Rodham Clinton had with White House lawyers, a Federal appeals court found that the lawyer-client privilege did not extend to talks between individuals and Government lawyers in connection with criminal matters. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The White House wants to frame this as an effort to protect the institution of the Presidency, which it says will suffer if the confidentiality of Presidential conversations is breached. A more realistic view is that Mr. Clinton has calculated that he has more to lose from allowing his advisers to testify now than from a likely defeat in court on the privilege claim a year or so from now. This strategy of delay may suit Mr. Clinton's needs as a politician and litigant, but it defies the overwhelming national interest in getting this matter resolved quickly and moving on. That, of course, would be far healthier for the Presidency than this contorted claim of executive privilege. nytimes.com March 24, 1998 LAW IN THE CLINTON ERA A Feminist Dilemma Related Editorial The Abuse of Privilege, Again The feminist movement has been called to judge whether President Clinton is worthy of its allegiance. These are not the first Clinton supporters to feel squeezed between their principles and an alliance with the President. Welfare advocates and environmentalists have faced similar conflicts. But the feminist response to the women accusing the President has posed with special sharpness the question of philosophical sellout. Some of the most vocal advocates on women's issues have been accused of having a double standard for Mr. Clinton. Within feminist circles there has been obvious reluctance to denounce the President or support his accusers, given his sworn denials and the fact that his political opponents also oppose a liberal agenda on women's rights. But the public and the media expect feminists to be militant about sexual misconduct, whether or not any law is violated. The hypocrisy charge is sticking because some feminist leaders are making distinctions between Mr. Clinton's behavior and past accusations of sexual harassment against Justice Clarence Thomas and former Senator Bob Packwood. Gloria Steinem, on our Op-Ed page, has argued that Mr. Clinton's alleged actions against Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey did not amount to sexual harassment because, even if he is lying, he took no for an answer after a single crude overture. As legal analysis, that may be sound. Sexual harassment law is still quite new and its contours have not been defined with precision by the Supreme Court. In general, a plaintiff would have to show that sexual demands were made in exchange for employment benefits, or that the bad conduct was so pervasive that it created a "hostile or abusive" work environment. The Clinton legal team says that Ms. Jones cannot show that she suffered any harm or was subjected to a hostile work environment. Ms. Willey's accusation may not meet that legal standard either. But for feminist leaders, wrestling over legal standards misses the danger involved. Social pressures have greatly restricted the acceptable range for sexual talk or gestures by men in the workplace. That has been a healthy development, based on years of legal work and exhortation by women's advocacy groups. The Clinton case raises the very real possibility that if the President is seen as getting away with gross behavior, more bosses will feel free to behave abominably. We doubt that Ms. Steinem meant to advocate a new kind of "no harm, no foul" mentality in the workplace. But that is the dangerous implication of her analysis. Any erosion of hard-won progress should concern women's advocates everywhere. nytimes.com

To: Grainne who wrote (12070)	3/24/1998 3:45:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Christine, For a conservative viewpoint that does not pull punches, you can listen to Neil Boortz (Atlanta) through his web site. He is on from 8:30AM to Noon eastern time. Also, you can print out his daily news from his website as well. Just go to: boortz.com