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: Zoltan! who wrote (7737)	10/4/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Zoltan, article...Clarence Thomas was right... By John N. Doggett In 1991 liberals tried to destroy Clarence Thomas because they did not want a "black conservative" U. S. Supreme Court justice. When they couldn't defeat him on the merits of his qualifications, they falsely accused him of sexual harassment. Now, the same people who said Clarence Thomas was unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice say we should keep a confirmed liar and sexual pervert as our president. Clarence upset many liberals when he said that he was the victim of a "high tech" lynching. However, if you look at the facts, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. Both Clarence and Bill are Yale Law graduates. Bill Clinton did things that they never even accused Clarence of. Nevertheless, while the liberals continue to vilify Clarence, they want us to believe that Bill can do nothing that would justify his removal from office. When Anita Hill slithered out from under her rock, liberals said that it didn't matter if "that woman" said Clarence never touched her. Now they say that Americans shouldn't care if their President inserted a cigar up a federal employee's genitals in the People's House. In 1991, liberals said that it didn't matter if "that woman" said Clarence never asked her for sex. Now they say that there is nothing wrong with the President having multiple episodes of oral sex with a federal employee in the workplace. In 1991, liberals said that Anita Hill was a victim of vicious sexual harassment event though she admitted that she continued to call Clarence for years after she left Washington, D.C. Now they defend Bill Clinton by claiming that he was ministering to a "disturbed young woman" by having phone sex with her while his wife was sleeping. In 1991, liberals said that they believed Anita although she invited Clarence to be the keynote speaker for a Sexual Harassment Conference at Oral Roberts University after she left Washington, D.C. Now they say that it simply doesn't matter if the president of the United States lied under oath in a federal lawsuit, before a federal grand jury and to the American people. How long would Clarence Thomas have lasted if his defense to Anita Hill's charges had been that oral sex wasn't sex? How long would Clarence Thomas have lasted if he claimed that he hadn't committed perjury because "it depended upon what the definition of the world 'is' is." Bill Clinton claims that his lies are irrelevant because Paula Jones' case had no merit. In fact, Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright dismissed the Paula Jones law suit because the judge believed that Paula Jones could not prove that Clinton damaged her when she refused Clinton's advances. After all, Paula Jones kept her low-level state job and continued to get her small raises. In fact, they did not fire her. So, as they say in basketball, no harm, no foul. Judge Wright was wrong. All we have to do is look at what happened to Paula Jones when she said no and contrast it with what Monica Lewinsky received as a payoff for saying yes. When Monica told Bill Clinton yes, a brave new world unfolded for her. She went from being an unpaid intern to a full-time federal employee. She was promoted to a Pentagon job with a top security clearance. The President of the United States took her calls, counseled her about her personal life and her career and gave her gifts. Monica's payoff included having the U. S. Ambassador to the UN come to her home to offer her a job. When Monica said yes, one of the most powerful lawyers in the world personally found her a lawyer, drove her around and asked the Chairmen of Fortune 500 firms to hire her. When Paula Jones said no, the President's men called her trailer trash and tried to destroy her. Do we really want a world where we abuse and vilify those who do the right thing while the Anita Hills and Monica Lewinskys of the world become rich with the wages of sin and betrayal? Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky because he knew that women who said yes were rewarded. Bill Clinton lied under oath because he knew that to reward those who had sex with him and to punish those who said no was sexual harassment. Bill Clinton lied under oath because he knew that the Supreme Court ruled last year that women do not have to show physical or emotional injury to prove sexual harassment. In 1991 Americans could tell that Clarence Thomas was an honorable man and that Anita Hill was lying. Because we defeated the liars of the left, we allowed Clarence Thomas to become a great Supreme Court Justice. In 1999, the people of America will again sit in judgment of a man charged with sexual crimes. In Bill Clinton's case, however, we have already established guilt. In Bill Clinton's case, the only issue will be what punishment he will receive for his sins. We no longer live in a world where the punishment for adultery is stoning to death. However, we do live in a world where the punishment for adultery and perjury will be the impeachment of the current president of the United States. Clarence Thomas was right. He was the victim of an attempted high tech lynching. Let's make sure that Clinton gets the full benefit of the law before we throw him out.