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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (7220)	9/28/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Paula Jones would like to see her case reopened....If this were a hopeless case, why are all the newspapers reporting that the president's lawyers are considering settlement? Carl, I, for one, have no idea why the president's lawyers are considering settlement. But I do have an idea about why they OUGHT to consider settlement, irrespective of whether the President is guilty or not. The case should be settled because the public interest demands it. If the lawyer who was initially handling this case (can't remember right now which one it was), had gone for settlement right after the Supreme Court ruled that the case could proceed (on what has proved to be the mistaken assumption that it would not interfere with the President's performance of his duties), we might have been spared a lot of totally unnecessary trauma. There was the risk, of course, that settling would be construed as admission of guilt, and that it could precipitate a whole mass of new harassment suits, but the risk was well worth taking, IMO. jbe P.S. I, for one, also appreciate your effort to keep the discussion focussed on the issues, not on the personalities of the discussants on this thread. Don't give up.

To: Bilow who wrote (7220)	9/28/1998 1:50:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

While it is true that the Jones lawsuit was dismissed, it is not known whether it would have been dismissed if the Lewinsky affidavit had been truthful. Paula Jones suit was dismissed because of an inability to show harm. The harm claimed is lack of promotion. Lewinsky was treated very kindly by the president in that area, and her testimony might have supported the harm claimed by Jones. Sure the judge ruled the evidence inadmissable due to immateriality, but that could have been because the evidence was false and/or misleading. The following passage from Judge's Wright's opinion granting the President's motion for summary judgement may not fully disprove every aspect of that argument, but I think it goes a very long way: One final matter concerns alleged suppression of pattern and practice evidence. Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff's case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the President's and Ferguson's motions for summary judgment, i.e., whether plaintiff herself was the victim of alleged quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment, whether the President and Ferguson conspired to deprive her of her civil rights, or whether she suffered emotional distress so severe in nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury. Reduced to its essence, the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party and the Court therefore finds that there are no genuine issues for trial in this case. Here's the full text of the opinion: washingtonpost.com (BTW, the Washington Post has very complete, and very well organized, materials relating to the impeachment crisis.) The fact that the President did some favors for Lewinsky doesn't help prove that he punished Jones. The whole area of trying to prove harassment by showing somebody else may have benefited is far more imagined to by a viable route towards winning a sexual harassment suit, than is actually the case, I believe. I believe there has to be a really pervasive climate of putting out leading to advancement, with really limited other routes up, for that to work. I'm not sure it's ever worked. At least in any case that was tested up one court level, through appeal. (If anyone can point to such a case, or better yet link it, I would be most interested.) Doug

To: Bilow who wrote (7220)	9/28/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: cool	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Oh-Oh Tom Delay up for criminal investigation (COMTEX) Task force looks at DeLay allegations Task force looks at DeLay allegations WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (UPI) _ The Justice Department's campaign finance task force is reviewing allegations against House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Tex. The matter was referred to the department by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. , in an Aug. 11 letter to Attorney General Janet Reno. In his letter, Levin referred to a story in The Hill, one of two newspapers covering Capitol Hill. The story said a Texas businessman who had pleaded guilty to illegally using third parties as campaign fund conduits for a GOP congressional candidate had told investigators that DeLay had given him advice on how to undertake the scheme. A spokesman for DeLay vigorously denied any involvement earlier this month. But Levin told Reno that additional material about the allegations was contained in material filed by the businessman with the Federal Election Commission. Levin also cited material contained in the minority report of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Fred Thompson, R- Tenn., which last year held hearings into alleged campaign finance abuses. The Justice Department, which is still waiting for its budget to be approved by Congress, waited more than six weeks before responding to Levin's request for an investigation. In a Thursday letter, Acting Assistant Attorney General L. Anthony Sutin told Levin that the allegations against DeLay and the minority report material have been referred to the campaign financing task force for their review. Justice Department officials caution privately that a review is not a full-scale investigation, and is standard procedure when a criminal allegation is referred from a member of Congress. The 120-member campaign finance task force so far has charged 12 people, all connected with Democratic fund raising, with campaign finance abuses. _- Copyright 1998 by United Press International. All rights reserved. _- * end of story *