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: Jim Roof who wrote (2794)	8/23/1998 10:36:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

the Lewinsky matter was one in which the woman willfully submitted and then was offered a 90K position at Revlon and a chance for promotion in the federal government. I fail to see how the mere fact that one accepted and the other refused makes Lewinsky immaterial. She was in the workplace. She was at some point had opportunity to have a sexual relationship with the president. The very type of sex is identical to Jones' claim. And the fact that Lewinsky garnered the attention of Bill Richardson and Vernon Jordan as she sought (or was offered) employment opportunities well beyond the scope of her work experience serves well to mark the contrast between what happens to those who give in to Mr. Clinton's wishes and those who refuse. Very sharp observation, Jim. Again the question begs answer: Where are the feminists???? Here we have the most clear of examples of how it doesn't matter what kind of brains or effort a woman puts into her job, but how much action she gives her boss. That is what garners close personal attention to the job-seeking efforts by the President's close personal advisor, Mr. Vernon Jordan! You'd think that feminists everywhere would be unanimous in their denounciation of this. Instead we get a feeble "uh well, they were two consenting adults, after all..duh...I so wish I had a brain..oh well I can always give the boss what he's been hinting at he really wants." ABC news posted a copy of Lewinsky's resume on their web-site, and I can tell you that the only "skill" listed was that she could use a word processing program. And her job at the Pentagon consisted of answering the phone and taking phone messages. In other words, basically she had nothing over what a B-student high school graduate could do. And yet, her sex with the President garnered her a job offer from Revlon. How many years has the feminist movement lost, without a word of disapproval from the feminist so-called spokeswomen.

To: Jim Roof who wrote (2794)	8/24/1998 10:20:00 AM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Jim, A couple of distinctions to be drawn, however: Jones was not an employee of the Governor. She was a volunteer greeter at a meeting so she was not even in the "workplace." Taking her facts as true, he came onto her in his hotel room in a very crude manner, and she rebuffed him. Later she continued to receive raises, promotions etc., and she never heard about the incident again from anyone. She quit her job voluntarily. Is that sexual harassment or not? As for Lewinsky, one ruling of the Jones judge is indicative of her view of what materiality the Lewinsky claim was--Judge Webber Wright ruled that further discovery on the ML matter was barred as not relevant under the discovery rules. That means according the ruling the ML's matter was not "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible material." This is a far lower threshhold than the "materiality" standard, which I think is something along the lines of "can affect the outcome of the case." So Judge WW didn't even think it reached the lower threshhold. I don't think from a legal perspective that this was material. However, there's no accounting for politics, so who knows by what process Congress will deal with these legal issues and how they will rule on them. Doughboy.