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: Bill who wrote (1112)	8/29/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

This post is to both Bill Vaughn and J B,Gentlemen you both make such compelling arguments as far as the current law stands that I cannot hope to refute them.You are both correct as far as the laws on sexual harassment are concerned .And that is of course what we are talking about.Perhaps what I am trying to say is that this law as it stands is too strict if it gives the government the right to intrude into a persons private life in this manner.I think you would both agree that a law such as this must have a point where the line is drawn.For many years it was permissible to question a rape victim about her passed sexual history to determine pattern of behavior.Today the flaw in this kind of thinking is obvious then it was not.I know this analogy is weak as we are talking about some one "allegedly" continually breaking the law.I only use it to demonstrate that ideas about personal privacy can change.I also ask you both to keep in mind the word here is alleged J B you mention several things allegedly said by Clinton that "could" be construed by PJ as pressure for her to comply. Only a fool would disagree.But I think it also foolish to automatically assume that these things were said and the implication was as stated.Investagate for sure but dig too deep into a persons private life in a civil case I don't think so .I don't think this would cripple the laws on sexual harassment.It boils down to this. I capitulate on the legality of Stars questioning of Clinton.I do question his motives .I do believe it was a"perjury trap " as defined by MH .If I were Clinton I would have refused on the grounds it is nobodies business.He didn't he lied under oath . Given the political realities as he saw them I still respectfully submit to the both of you 'Jay Walking'! Bill, he will not resign. pez