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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (5013)	9/23/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<< This was clearly a trumped up political lawsuit. Look at the backers of that suit.>> The people you refer to entered the scene after Jones came forward. If your scenario was totally accurate, they would have been involved from the beginning. Also, the backers don't make the suit less valid. By the way, I have absolutely no opinion regarding the validity of Jones' claims. For all we know, they are all true - remember that harassment is very much dependent on the feelings of the person that claims they were harassed. That entire field of law is somewhat obscene in its vagueness. Jones could be telling the truth, and so could Clinton. Remember what he said in his deposition about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Speaking of Thomas and Hill, were you this supportive of Thomas? After all, the Hill allegations had far less corroborative evidence than Jones' claims. Jones at least has other people making similar claims, and Clinton admitting to at least some similar behavior. There were no such corroborations with Hill. If you weren't as supportive of Thomas, you may want to really give some thought as to whether you are supporting Clinton because you think he is right, or only because you support the Democrat positions. That's what I was getting at regarding partisanship. IMHO, it's better to have principles than positions. That way you know you are being open-minded and fair. <<Impeachment isn't about lying or else Bush should have been impeached over the read my lips lie. >> Perjury and obstruction of justice are not as simple as lying. Don't compare apples and oranges. Much of your response was supposition and a bit of conspiracy theory. There is no way to really discuss those, since there is no way to prove what either side said really said or why they did what they did. In the long run, none of that really matters. What matters is: Did Clinton (fill in the blank), and if so, what would be the appropriate response from the Congress, the Senate and the American people. Everything else is character assassination, and should be avoided.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (5013)	9/23/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 67261

I disagree with almost everything in your post. You ignore the fact that he did it. Yes, Clinton used a state cop to bring Jones to his hotel room so he could proposition her. Don't talk to me about frivolous. This was a court sanctioned matter that had held up through discovery despite repeated attempts by the WH to have it dismissed. The WH was ultimately successful because of Jones' weak damages claim. (Don't be surprised howver when they win their appeal.) You and the president seem to be saying it's OK to commit perjury if you don't agree with the motives of the other litigant. That's ridiculous.