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: Amsterdam who wrote (17765)	7/29/1998 10:24:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Perjury and sexual harassment WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah Wednesday 07/29/98 Maybe it's time to go over all this again. Let's say there's a CEO of a major corporation. Let's call him Bill. A sexual harassment suit is filed against him by a woman, let's call her Paula, who worked for him at another company. She says company security guards summoned her to a hotel room, where he shamelessly exposed himself and asked her to perform oral sex. When she protested, he allegedly pulled her close and whispered that this little incident should remain between them -- reminding Paula that her immediate supervisor was a close friend. Paula left the company and hoped to put the incident behind her. But years later a magazine story about the CEO's sexcapades suggested that she had actually offered to be her married boss' mistress. Enough was enough, she thought. She demanded the CEO clear the air, apologize to her and tell the world that she did nothing improper in that hotel room. He refused. So she filed a very public sexual harassment lawsuit against him. In the course of the pre-trial depositions, Paula's attorneys believed it was important to demonstrate that Bill, though married, was extremely promiscuous and had carried on a series of affairs -- both long-term and short-term -- throughout his life. One of his conquests, they believed, was a 21-year-old intern who we'll call Monica. In sworn testimony in the pre-trial phase of the case, both Bill and Monica denied any affair took place. Bill went so far as to say he scarcely knew the intern and had certainly never bought her gifts or spent any time alone with her. Partly on the basis of this sworn testimony, taken under penalty of perjury, the case against Bill was dismissed. But later, the ex-intern admitted to an affair with the CEO, admitted accepting his gifts, admitted more than 50 private meetings with her boss, after which she was promoted to a top job in another department of the company. Question: Does that CEO have even a ghost of a chance of surviving the next board of directors meeting? Is there any doubt that Bill, consumed, by the way, in a host of other company scandals, some of which seem far more serious than perjury, abuse of power, adultery and taking advantage of young women, is deemed to be a liability to the company and its image? Do you think the directors would really judge this case by the company's latest profit-and-loss statement? Or, do you think they would act swiftly and decisively to rid themselves of this misogynist jerk and replace him with another able and qualified executive? Worse yet, suppose this same CEO used his wealth and power to hire the best attorneys to help him stonewall the justice system? What if he fought off subpoenas to testify? What if there was evidence his inner circle orchestrated a massive cover-up, coached witnesses, invented creative new legal strategies and used a scorched-earth policy against anyone and everyone who dared to stand up to him and testify truthfully? What's so hard to understand about this? Why is this decision so difficult to make for some people? Why is this not a no-brainer? Of course it is. Except, for some reason, if the CEO happens to be the president of the United States. As a nation, some seem to argue, we should hold the highest elected official in the land, the chief law enforcement officer and the most powerful man in the world to a lower standard of morality, ethics and justice than an ordinary CEO. We're also supposed to ignore the grave threat it represents to the nation to have the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces vulnerable to blackmail because of his involvement in this scandal. We're also supposed to forget the fact that the whole world views the nation's president as something of a joke. We're not to consider how the pressure of this scandal might affect the president's judgment the next time the nation faces a crisis, either foreign or domestic. It's just sex, we're told. How do you expect a married man to respond to questions about an extramarital affair? Perjury and abuse of power are not such big deals any way. So what? After all, that sexual harassment case that started it all was thrown out of court, wasn't it? A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at ktkz.com worldnetdaily.com