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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4987)	9/23/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<When Clinton saw Monica Lewinsky's name on the witness list on Dec. 6, he had the option to settle the "frivolous" lawsuit and none of the ensuing illegal maneuvers he used would have been necessary, we would not be talking about Monica Lewinsky today, Linda Tripp or anyone else.>> Certainly as things turned out settling on any terms would have been preferable. Hindsight makes many things clear. But I don't buy your supposition that Clinton simply decided he could always perjury himself if it came to that. The hangup on settling the Jones lawsuit was her insistence on an apology that amounted to admitting Clinton had harassed her. Clinton tried apoligies that did not; they were rejected. I have little doubt that was insisted on by her funders (who even then were supporting her, though the tab had grown nowhere near as large as it was to become). I think Clinton really is innocent of the behavior Jones alleges (other than bringing her up to his room after she had made eyes, and asking in a non crude way if she had an interest, as I have said). And that admitting to harassment when he truly is very much opposed to it, and considering that feminists form part of his base, truly offended him. He may also have believed the Jones suit would soon fall of its own frivolous; though that took very long. And that he could exclude evidence touching on conduct which did not involve any allegations of harassment. Here he was caught in the inquisitional excesses possible under the harassment laws which ordinary Americans are potentially subject to. And which must be reformed. As I have said repeatedly. (There should be an analog to the rape shield laws.) Doug