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 (1164)	8/29/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

pezz, this term "perjury trap" I first heard on the Dell thread when we were discussing this topic there. Apparently perjury trap is turning out to be a new sound byte in the legal media (Court TV etc) to describe this sort of situation. What I dont know is whether something like this could have happened to anybody but the President? Im talking about establishing a pattern of behavior etc. - as far as I knew, sexual harrassment laws were pretty much confined to the actual incident/environment in question, ex. what you did in your last job was not evidence. Im not sure, just asking. MH

To: pezz who wrote (1164)	8/29/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: RJC2006	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.>>> Instead I will attempt to obfuscate 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.>>> Begin obfuscation.... <<<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.>>> Yeah, the last thing we want to do is intrude on a wrong-doers private life. <<<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. >>> Kind of like how the Clinton dogs dug up Monica's. >>>Investagate for sure but dig too deep into a persons private life in a civil case I don't think so>>> Curiouser and curiouser... <<<I do question his motives .I do believe it was a"perjury trap " as defined by MH >>> Mr. Starr: "Now Mr. Clinton, I am going to show you a set of ink blots and I want you to give me the first word that comes to your mind." <flips ink blot that looks like a spider web> Mr. Clinton: "That's easy...SEX" Mr. Starr: "Uhh...ok, how about this one" <flips over ink blot that looks like a turtle> Mr. Clinton: "That's easy too....SEX" Mr. Starr: "President Clinton so far I have turned over two ink blots and I can't remotely understand how you could think these have anything to do with sex." Mr. Clinton: "Hey, don't blame me, you're the one showing me the dirty pictures!" Moral...it's always the other guy's fault. <<<If I were Clinton I would have refused on the grounds it is nobodies business.>>> I think using the 5th Amendment would have played better. <<<He didn't he lied under oath .>>> No, he lied AFTER the oath. <<<Given the political realities as he saw them >>> "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth given the political realities so help you God?"

To: pezz who wrote (1164)	8/31/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<But I think it also foolish to automatically assume that these things were said and the implication was as stated.>> IF the comments were made, the threat was real. A feeling of threat is a perception, not necessarily a reality, and Jones has already testified that she felt the comments were a threat. I make no assumptions as to the veracity of her testimony. I am absolutely waiting until all the evidence is presented to the public before I pass judgement. My comments are all made (I hope) with the understanding that they are based on information currently available. <<I do question his motives >> His motives are not relevant. Even if Ken Starr is the Devil incarnate, Clinton either did or did not do the various things of which he is accused. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to testify the way he did. Only he is responsible for his actions and their results. In the same way that people defend the legality of Clinton's actions, Starr's actions appear to be completely legal (pending the current investigation into leaks). Even if Starr leaked info to the press, Clinton is either guilty or not of the accusations. Nothing Starr says or does can change that. <<I still respectfully submit to the both of you 'Jay Walking'! Bill, he will not resign.>> I agree that Clinton most likely will not resign. Even if there was video of him eating small children, he would not resign. He just doesn't seem the type to give up. That's my version of a compliment, by the way. As to the "jay walking", that's a matter of opinion. The accusations seem to be based on a pattern of abuse of power and cover ups, absolutely not jay walking. You've heard it before - it's not about sex!! Should Cliton resign or be impeached? I don't know - I'm still waiting to see what it is he actually did, not what he has been accused of. Don't find him "not guilty" before the evidence is in either. You may find you've painted yourself into a corner.