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: Shadow who wrote (4461)	9/21/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Of course you're a republican and thats why you cant see the larger issue in question here which is why the feminists stand behind Clinton. Thats what I was trying to get at. You seem to have no problem with this probing into someones very very personal life, assigning some sanctimonious prosecutor to make HIS assessment of what is right or wrong about the specifics of these activities (we know that was a decision Starr made, otherwise why include the details, because he thought it was WRONG and was trying to gross out the public thats why) which are none of his damn business and have nothing to do with Whitewater. You then have a bunch of republican senators that latch on to this horrid event and use it as a excuse to make jokes about Hillary - who they are secretly all afraid of, as a kind of affirmation that the dorky cookie bakers that they hold dear are obviously superior people etc. And to top it off they all start praying for us. Well, thats the way I see it anyway and thats how the feminists see the situation Im sure. Its just another lifestyle slam at somebody different from them, all the way down - Bill, Hillary, Monica everybody. Michelle

To: Shadow who wrote (4461)	9/21/1998 8:19:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

Jones wanted an apology that amounted to admitting that he had sexually harassed her. He was willing to pay the money. At first that was all the political funders thought they could get out of it. Proof, or what could be taken as proof, that this feminist Prez. had sexually harassed a woman. What if he didn't? What if he did ask her up to his room, perceiving perhaps (rightly or wrongly) that she was making eyes at him? What if he in a not crude fashion asked whether she had an interest? And she said no. And he said then goodbye. And she got pissed off, having fantasized he had seen something profound in her or something, that should lead to large job opportunities. So she complained, exaggerated. Repub. haters picked her up in their vast dragnets in Arkansas. Asked her what REALLY happened, suggesting bad possible "facts" that would help their case. She increasing agreed. They signed on and funded? He should admit harassment in those circumstances? Well, yes, if you could predict all this. But certainly understandable that he wouldn't. And I think that is about what happened with Paula Jones. Consistent with his MO. And hers. I also think there zealous right wing backers increasingly saw the vast dragnet latitude that sexual harassment discover might, just might afford them. And that leaking dirt from that, or tricking the Prez. to cross the perjury line, was the real paydirt. No wonder then that the Prez. sought to thread the needle, through extremely unhelpful legalistic language interpretions. Morally defensible. Absolutely. Wise? Not if you had a better understanding of how the deck was stacked. As the Paula Jones side, in possession of the Tripp tapes, did, and the Prez. did not. Doug