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 (5185)	9/24/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I thought in some cases it was harassment just for asking someone out more than once. How could someone be damaged for being asked a polite question? The answer lie in who is doing the asking. If republicans are doing the asking, it's harassment. If democrats are asking, it's OK. Personally, I will just adapt to this double standard situation. As a conservative, I will never ask the question. That's the way it is. Live with it. alan w

To: dougjn who wrote (5185)	9/24/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

dougjn, I do consider it "insulting" to the Judge's integrity when he has written such a well documented argument only to have someone say, in part, his conclusions are being drawn on the basis of leaks. Especially in light of the fact that you didn't even bother to verify your assumption. That kind of "shooting from the hip" analysis does nothing to further real understanding of the issues. And you persist.....from your post: "I continue to think that his argument makes context quite important, and that Napolitano did not marshal much evidence that his evaluation of the context was correct.<< Again more assumptions on your part, done with the purpose of casting doubt on the Judges's reasoning. How do you know what evidence the Judge "marshalled"? The answer is, of course, you don't. As far as the rest of your argument about the potential "damage" which could result from Jones winning the appeal, again totally misses the point of Napolitano's argument. He starts out his article with "The Paula Jones case is far from dead". He then proceeds to outline (with legal references) why the false Lewinsky affidavit puts Clinton's "victory" in jeopardy, totally apart from the merits of the Jones case. I think it's totally ironic that Clinton may be forced to pay a judgement to Jones because succumbed to using fraud to protect himself from this case with no merit. Ultimate example of what goes around, comes around. bp