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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (236)	9/13/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

re: "sex perjury" That's an interesting phrase. Sex perjury. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use it before. I haven't really thought about the subdivisions and catagories of perjury before, and which ones are really-and-truly-evil, and which ones are not-so-bad-lets-just-look-the-other-way. I guess, in your mind, if sex is involved, then it fits into the let's-not-punish-it type of perjury. A man's home is his castle, and all that. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional scholar, so I don't know if the law makes any distinctions between "sex perjury" and "non-sex perjury". But I've never heard of any such distinction, in the law or otherwise, so I suspect that the distinction is only in your own mind. Anyway, it's not about sex. It's about power. He committed perjury because that was the only way to preserve his political power. His pollster told him he'd be ruined politically if the voters found out, so he lied. Does "power perjury" count? If he lied because telling the truth would end his carear, what variety of perjury do you pigeonhole it into? re: "should all such liasons be disallowed?": If you work for a Fortune 500 company, or the Federal Government, there are rules forbidding sexual relationships between supervisors and subordinates. These codes of conduct have been put in place in the last few years to protect people who are young, female, naiive, and at the bottom of the heirarchy. They were designed to protect them against manipulative, predatory, powerful males. They were designed to protect people like Monica from people like Bill. re: "She was not a child". Compared to him, she was a child. The Starr report makes it clear that this was not a relationship between equals. That should be obvious, anyway. Her expectations and understanding about what type of relationship they had, and would have in the future, was totally unrealistic. However, there are some odd things which don't quite fit, and need further explanation. For instance, why did she save the stained dress? That's the "smoking gun", the equivalent of the missing minutes on the Watergate tape; without it his stone-wall would be intact today. She says, "I just forgot to wash it". That explanation strains credibility. If he had had sex with someone who he did not supervise, and if he had lied (and orchestrated other people's lies) anywhere except in court, then it would not be an impeachable offense. Shameful, stupid, but not impeachable.