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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (1111)	8/29/1998 11:32:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The law says a superior can't give someone job preferences/rewards in exchange for sexual favors, while discriminating against those who turn down the superior's sexual advances. The Jones lawyers were trying to prove Clinton gave preferences to subordinates who had sex with him. He was asked about Monica. He lied. It is relevant and he will end up resigning from the presidency due to his coverup and obstruction of justice. This is a classic sex harassment case. Now before you respond with another non sequitur, please give the above a little thought.

To: pezz who wrote (1111)	8/29/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<how does this in any way demonstrate that Clinton tried in any way to intimidate Paula Jones?>> Anytime a low-level employee is called in to talk with a high-level employee, especially the head of the company (Clinton was Governor, Jones was a low-level government employee), there is a built-in intimidation factor. Jones' testimony included Clinton making reference to being friends with her boss, another not-too-subtle attempt at intimidation. Being brought into the royal presence by a state trooper might also be intimidating. The difference in the two people's "power" is what results in the intimidation, not anything Clinton may have said or done.