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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (327)	8/3/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Later rather than sooner, less rather than more - Clinton is trying to push this beyond the fall elections: Ruff said the White House would bypass a chance to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals to consider the case. White House lawyers will ask the Supreme Court to expedite its hearing of the issue when the justices return from vacation in the fall, he said. White House lawyers also will ask the appeals court for a stay preventing prosecutors from questioning Lindsey until the Supreme Court considers taking the case, an administration official said. search.washingtonpost.com

To: jlallen who wrote (327)	8/3/1998 2:08:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

Considering that in each case, the woman/girl was either provided a better job by Clinton or sought out Clinton for a better job as a result of this situtation. His strongest supporter is Barney Frank, who was caught with a call boy ring being run out of his home by his roommate. Go Figure.

To: jlallen who wrote (327)	8/4/1998 3:07:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

You make some good points here.I do believe that the two cases you talk about don't really apply in this case since Paula has claimed that she was subjected to some really crude behavior.This was the pattern of behavior that I assumed he was trying to demonstrate.If on the other hand he[Star]was trying to show that Monica was given favors that were with held from Paula because she did not grant Clinton sexual favors I may have to rethink my position.Still this seems to me that you are pushing the envelope here.After all I don't believe it speaks well for the concept of freedom for the gov.to be telling consenting adults who they can and cannot have sex with.As far as the "I changed my mind defence"I cannot see how Star could have used this to any advantage.At any rate you may have the best of this argument here.Havelng said that I surely believe that this was at best a perjury trap on Star's part. BTW I have a question for you and anyone else who would defend Paula.Do you really believe any passes Clinton may have made at her were unwanted?I believe Clinton may chase women but I also believe he only chases the ones that want him to. Your friends may think willey was credible [Clinton haters mostly I assume]I thought just the opposite.When the moderator had to practically drag out of her ,in his most sensitive way,that she had been touched on the breast as though she had been traumatized by this touch.I not only thought she was setting up her lawsuit[haveing learned well from the Jones case that one must show injury]but doing a real disservice to women everywhere that know the real trauma of abuse.Willey had lived a life of wealth and privilege and now broke with no husband or skills of her own to finance this life style she thought she could jump on the bandwagon IMO.Trip's comment was on CNN I have not seen any retraction .I know I did not get the quote right but I believe I got the spirt of what she said. pez