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: Doughboy who wrote (2853)	8/24/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: John Hensley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Dough- I hope you had a good weekend. 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. She was in fact an employee. She worked in some kind of economic development department. Further, she went into HIS room (alledgedly), escorted by Trooper Danny Ferguson (the other defendant in the case) where he had his pants around his ankles (alledgedly). This case was never a "sexual harassment" case. It was a violation of Paula Jones' civil rights. The entire case was thrown out because Judge Wright determined that a governor with his pants around his ankles asking an employee the "kiss it" was not egregious behavior. I happen to disagree and think a jury of her peers should make this determination.

To: Doughboy who wrote (2853)	8/24/1998 12:20:00 PM
From: Jim Roof	Respond to of 13994

<<A couple of distinctions to be drawn, however: Jones was not an employee of the Governor.>> While it is true that Jones did not work in the Governor's Office it is also true that Jones was aware of the influence that Clinton would have via his well connected status to the Arkansas State government. Mr. Clinton was in a position to either reward or punish her. As an aside, it could also be argued that what is relevant here is Jones' mental state at the time of the proposition. It is considered armed robbery if all one does is put their hand under their sweatshirt and point the finger in a hold-up. I think it plausible to argue that Jones, a state employee, would have been in a state of mind that caused her to feel the intimidation of having been sexually approached by a superior. <<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.">> Judge Webber Wright could only have based her ruling of materiality on the facts available to the court at that time. These facts included a.) Lewinsky's affidavit which is now known to be false and b.) the President's sworn deposition which is also now known to be false. Outside of these two sources of information what would Judge Wright have to go on? Now that the body of information available for making such a judgement has taken a 180 degree turn I have no doubt at all that the Lewinsky material would be perfectly admissable. I believe that Wright also considered the Starr investigation's needs in making this determination. Perhaps Judge Wright had already seen the weakness of the case and figured there would be no harm in terminating the Lewinsky discovery. Given what we know now, I cannot see Lewinsky's immateriality should the case be revived. Jim