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: pezz who wrote (7909)	10/8/1998 2:53:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Having sex with your subordinate is considered a serious work issue, and highly unethical. It's never a simple fling if you're the boss. But aside from that, I was saying if the CEO used the powers of his office to cover up the affair because it would prove damaging in an unrelated civil suit, or even if it would prove embarrassing to his family, he would probably be fired. Certain phone calling patterns suggest Clinton was trying to use the powers of his office to keep this thing hushed up after he lied about it in the deposition. Starr couldn't prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. He got a lot of vague answers from Vernon Jordan, Clinton, Currie. I believe that's why he put all that sex in the report--out of pure frustration at not being able to prove the obstruction he felt was there. That was a stupid, amateur, bush-league move on his part. I think the sex matter will recede into the background as this process moves on. The Republicans smell obstruction, and that's what they're hunting. They don't want dirt on the president's sex life. They don't care about the sexual harrassment allegations. They don't care about the campaign finance issues. They're smart. They want phone records, accounts of meetings between players, letters, e-mails from long after the affair ended. Did Clinton use the powers of the presidency to cover up this relationship from the Independent Counsel and the Paula Jones lawyers? If he did, boom! obstruction. Yes, it was not fair and he was pretty much set up. But the Republicans don't really care about that. The Republicans don't even need to find the rock solid proof Starr could not. They only need to make a case for it that sounds credible enough to at least silence the swing voters. They don't need to meet courtroom evidentiary standards. They just need a majority of the House. If they get that, they'll try to convince Democrats like Lieberman that they should abandon Clinton and save their own skin in order to get the 2/3 of the Senate. This isn't about what's right or wrong. It's about who's got the power.

To: pezz who wrote (7909)	10/8/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

pezz - hopefully you are never allowed to run a business. You don't understand how destructive that kind of thing is. What about the effect on the women in the office who are disgusted by that kind of behavior? Should they be subjected to working in that environment, where another, less principled woman can advance her career by fooling around with the boss? Get a grip! Sure - let the boss diddle who he wants in your organization. Then when it's you or the diddlee on the layoff bubble and you somehow end up with the pink slip, you'll still think it's no one's business, right? Disgusting. Defend the indefensible with drivel. Mr. K.