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: jbe who wrote (5858)	9/28/1998 1:34:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

okay, fair enough, those are your opinions. But re >I believe there has to be some evidence that the "harassee" was discriminated against, job-wise, for failing to "put out."< Not true. A Federal court has since ruled on this very issue. The very case is on the government's web site, and was linked to on this very thread, or it may have been the "Clinton corruption" thread. I know who found the case, and I could find the link with a little effort. The upshot was that there does not have to be a lack of raises, demotions, etc., in order for an alleged harasser to be guilty of sexual harassment. Besides all that, it is clear that if a court will rule that a man having posters of scantily-clad women in his workplace in view of other female workers constitutes sexual harassment, then surely a man exposing his penis to a subordinate employee would constitute sexual harassment in any rational person's mind--I'm not suggesting you are irrational, but I think you would be a little displeased if one of your bosses very high up on the chain of authority had you summoned to his hotel room during some kind of official function, and then when you got there he abruptly dropped his pants and suggested that you "kiss it"; yes, I think you might feel a little bit harasssed. Maybe not, but I think any woman would feel that way, unless of course she did want to kiss it, which Paula did not. Regarding perjury, allow me to repost here what I just posted on the thread, so you are sure to see it. Plainly, Clinton perjured himself when he affirmed that Lewinsky's affidavit was "absolutely true" when she said she did not have sex with him, because it is plain that he has admitted to the GJ that he did receive oral sex from her: which, even under his definition of sex, as he saw the court's definition of sex, Monica would plainly be having sex with him by giving him oral sex. So.......perjury it is, with no escape on technicalities. Eventually lies tend to trap a person. washingtonpost.com (1) Perjury. Clinton's defense -- that Monica Lewinsky had sex with him but he didn't have sex with her -- has rightly earned derision. But for the sake of argument, assume that Clinton is right that, under the definition offered by the Jones court, he did not have sex with her. Fine. But there is no semantic escape from this: When presented with Monica Lewinsky's deposition stating that she didn't have sex with him and asked if it was true, Clinton responded "absolutely true." (Like O. J. and his classic "absolutely 100 percent not guilty," Clinton prefers to lie with gusto.) But Clinton claims that she was the toucher and he the touchee. Hence, under the very court definition of sex that Clinton has been peddling, her denial of having sex was false and his affirmation was perjury. ---------------