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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1167)	8/29/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michell, I was taking those guys at there word.That is sexual harassment can be defined as the offering of work related favors in exchange for sex.I suppose this is to be considered harassment of those who were passed over for these favors, promotions ,what have you. I was with you on the Idea that what happened in your history has no relevancy.Consider a burglar cannot to my knowledge have past history of burglary brought up in a trial of a current suspected offence.So why is this idea of a pattern of behavior relevant or even legal?Why this concept seems to fly beats me.What is galling is every body knows Monica was not balling Clinton for promotions but because she wanted to.After all, this big deal of a job[$30000 ?]came long after their relationship had begun. I suppose under current law Star has the legal right to ask about it.Believe me I'm not a lawyer so what the hell do I know? But this seems to be the reason [excuse is more like it]that Star used for justifying his questioning.My belief is that Star did indeed set Clinton up.Not because he is a bad guy but because he thought Clinton guilty of crimes that he couldn't prove so he was able to justify this in his own mind. "perjury trap" very descriptive those two words sound byt or no they say a lot Clinton was dammed if he did dammed if he didn't. When Stars report comes out he had better have more and I think if he did he wouldn't be even bothering with this.I suspect that he will not have anything but will imply that Clinton 's guilty but he just can't prove it. pez