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: LoLoLoLita who wrote (14405)	4/22/1998 1:24:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 20981

SS new motto....See No Clinton, Speak No Clinton, Hear No Clinton...

To: LoLoLoLita who wrote (14405)	4/22/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>In the letter, Bush said he was deeply troubled by the White House sex scandal, but felt "very strongly that Secret Service agents should not be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might not have heard or seen." Boy George is as inept as ever. The issue is not what he states above, but rather whether the President can impede a criminal investigation of himself by forbidding SS agents from appearing in court and testifying truthfully. Any privilege cannot and should not be allowed to shield the President from legal action arising from his own criminal activity. That would be clearly extra-Constitutional. Non-criminally inclined Presidents would have nothing to fear.

To: LoLoLoLita who wrote (14405)	4/22/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: LoLoLoLita	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Top Stories Updated 7:37 AM ET April 22, 1998 U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Sex Harassment Case By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a sexual harassment case that may have important implications for Paula Jones's appeal trying to revive her lawsuit against President Clinton. While the facts of the two cases contain some key differences, legal experts agreed the Jones appeal would be affected if the high court redefined what constitutes unlawful sexual harassment. They said the greatest impact on the Jones case -- which was dismissed by a federal judge in Arkansas April 1 -- would occur if the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment cases need not show economic damage. "I think it could have a very significant affect on the Jones case. It is an extremely important issue," University of Southern California law professor Erwin Chemerinsky said. "There is a clear connection. The Supreme Court will resolve whether economic damage is a requirement for a sexual harassment lawsuit," he said. In the Jones ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright acknowledged that Clinton's alleged conduct was "boorish and offensive." But she said the decisive factor in dismissing the lawsuit was that Jones did not suffer any tangible economic damage as an Arkansas state employee. Jones alleged that Clinton, then governor, exposed himself, asked her for oral sex at a hotel room in 1991 and then said he knew her immediate supervisor. Jones has interpreted the remark as a threat, but the judge said it was too ambiguous. Clinton has denied all the allegations. Jones last week in Dallas announced that she would appeal the judge's ruling, but her lawyers did not spell out the legal grounds. Chemerinsky predicted the Jones appeal would be based on the economic injury issue and whether an alleged single act could be be sufficient for a sexual harassment lawsuit. One difference in the Supreme Court case was that the plaintiff, Kimberly Ellerth, a former employee of Burlington Industries Inc., was subjected to a pattern of alleged unwelcomed sexual advances by her boss in 1993 and 1994. Despite factual differences in the two cases, a top Justice Department lawyer acknowledged the ruling could affect the Jones appeal if the Supreme Court issued a broad new statement on sexual harassment law. The Rutherford Institute, which has arranged for Jones's legal representation, said it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Ellerth case urging the justices to impose a "strict liability" standard for sexual harassment cases. "If the Supreme Court adopts the strict liability standard, that's very beneficial for the Jones appeal," said John Whitehead, the head of the institute. Under that standard, which the Justice Department has advocated, a plaintiff must only reasonably believe there has been a threat of adverse job consequences, rather than prove economic injury. Whitehead and other legal experts said the Jones appeal would be bolstered if the justices upheld a U.S. appeals court ruling that Ellerth had a case based on the serious threat of job harm. Conversely, her chances of success would be hurt if the court reversed the appeals court ruling, they said. Ellerth, a merchandising assistant, claimed Vice President Theodore Slowik told her in a hotel lounge during a business trip in North Carolina, "You know, Kim, I could make your life very hard or very easy at Burlington." She alleged he patted her on the rear at the annual company holiday party and told her her job would be a "whole heck of a lot easier" if she wore short skirts. The justices will hear hour-long arguments Wednesday, with a ruling due in the case by the end of June.

To: LoLoLoLita who wrote (14405)	4/22/1998 2:01:00 PM
From: LoLoLoLita	Respond to of 20981

Politics Updated 6:45 AM ET April 22, 1998 Whitewater Witness Goes on Trial in Arkansas WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key Whitewater witness David Hale goes on trial in Arkansas today after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas refused to block the state from pursuing charges of lying to insurance regulators against him. Hale goes on trial in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas on charges of filing a false or misleading statement about an insurance company the state said he owned. Hale argued a plea agreement and immunity granted to him by Whitewater prosecutors in 1994 should protect him in the state case. He also claimed the case was political payback by his opponents for his cooperation with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. Thomas refused Tuesday to intervene to block the state action. A federal appeals court last week also refused to block Hale's trial. Hale provided key testimony that resulted in the conviction of James and Susan McDougal, the partners with President Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater real estate development. Also convicted was then-Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Starr last week asked Attorney General Janet Reno to work out an arrangement with his office to investigate allegations that Hale while cooperating with the investigation had taken cash and other benefits from conservative groups seeking to discredit Clinton. Starr told Reno he has developed several proposed alternatives so a "complete, thorough and unbiased investigation" can be conducted, but he did not elaborate on the proposals.

To: LoLoLoLita who wrote (14405)	4/22/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: LoLoLoLita	Respond to of 20981

Politics Updated 6:46 AM ET April 22, 1998 Lewinsky, Lawyer To Skip White House Dinner WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Neither Monica Lewinsky nor her attorney will attend Saturday's annual White House correspondent's dinner, William Ginsburg says, adding that it would be "tasteless" to do so. Paula Jones will attend the dinner as a guest of the conservative magazine Insight, according to the Rutherford Institute, which has arranged Jones' legal representation in her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton. Ginsburg, appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live," said Tuesday that he was not taking a "pot shot" at Jones and respected her decision to attend the annual event. But he added, "Neither Monica Lewinsky nor I are going to attend that dinner. That's between the White House correspondents and the president of the United States and his staff. And it's tasteless for us to attend." "Paula Jones has made her own decision with her lawyers and I respect her decision, but we will not be there because we don't think its appropriate for us to be there." Ginsburg repeated his criticism of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of allegations that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and urged her to lie about it. Both Clinton and Lewinsky have denied the allegations. He said he doubted Lewinsky would be indicted in the case anytime soon, but declined to discuss any details of the case. Lewinsky, he said, would assert her Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating herself if she was called before the grand jury. Ginsburg blasted Starr's office for calling Lewinsky's mother to testify, and attempting to subpoena the records of Washington area bookstores in an attempt to find out which books the former White House intern may have given the president as gifts. Starr's actions amounted to an assault on Americans' right to privacy, and threatened to prevent children from being able to confide in their parents. "The day the children cannot communicate with the parents is the day the fabric of this democracy is so badly torn that we may not be able to repair it," Ginsburg told CNN. He also launched another attack on the integrity of Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp who taped over 20 hours of conversations in which Lewinsky talked of an intimate relationship with Clinton. "For 30 pieces of silver, this woman betrayed her best friend. She had a pending book deal at the time she began pursuing Monica Lewinsky," Ginsburg said, noting that Tripp began tape recording conversations with Lewinsky long before Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. A federal judge has since thrown out Jones' case against Clinton, but Jones has vowed to appeal. "Where was her friendship, her honor, her sense of responsibility and friendship when she pushed that button," he said. "A friend doesn't betray a friend."