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: dougjn who wrote (5051)	9/24/1998 9:19:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<If Clinton could be shown to have a pattern of true and unambiguous sexual harassment, I would consider that quite serious.>> The people you described are not the only employees that have claimed Clinton approached them in a sexual manner. Of course, there are also a number of non-employees that make such claims. Most of America seems to believe that Clinton is a womanizer of some repute. When you attack the motivation behind the claims I begin to have problems. The attacks originated with the WH, and were part of the typical Clinton smear campaign. If you look at Clinton's motivation for lying, it's all about power and control. Why would you consider his claims to be more credible than theirs? If what you are saying is that there is no legitimate civil or criminal case to be made against Clinton for his sexual behavior, I would probably agree. However, not being able to prove something is not the same as saying it never happened. Clinton could be very guilty, even if no one can prove it in court. Of course, he could also be totally innocent. What strikes me about the Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky situations, is the consistency of what Clinton is accused of doing. Primarily oral sex (he slipped once with Flowers), "if you deny it, it didn't happen", and use of government empolyees to aid and abet. Based on his history, I think the Willey claim is credible, even if unprovable.