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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10371)	10/20/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<BTW I think the bogus Paula Jones lawsuit, where she suffered no damage whatsoever and her claims appear to be financially motivated, caused more damage to sexual harassment legislation in this country than anything Clinton could have done.>> Paula Jones lawsuit....what Clinton could have done. Aren't these two things related to the same lawsuit?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10371)	10/20/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 67261

Again, the point is both Anita Hill and Paula Jones made sexual harassment claims. Thomas was vilified by liberal women's groups on the basis on the accusation alone and BC gets a pass. It's interesting that you give more "credibility" to Hill. Apparently she, herself, didn't have enough faith in her own claim to file a lawsuit. Paula Jones did. Apparently BC thought there was enough credible evidence in her case to warrant him risking perjury and subornation of perjury for this "bogus" case. The only gripe I have against Paula Jones in her case was that it wasn't done in a timely fashion. By waiting so long, she had to file a civil case and I think there was grounds for a criminal case against BC. I don't know how I would have handled it in her situation, but hindsite is 20/20. As far as setting sexual harassment cases back, what about a judge who rules that an employer unzipping his pants, exposing himself, and touching the woman inappropriately doesn't sufficient rise to a level of "outrage" to proceed with sexual harassment charges. Please. bp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10371)	10/20/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 67261

Anita Hill did not tell the truth. If she were harassed, why did she continue to work for him for eight more years? Why did she move into a different agency with him after these events occurred? Her answer to Sen Specter: I didn't think I could get another job. An African American woman Yale Law School grad couldn't get another job? That was when she lost me. NO CREDIBILITY.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10371)	10/20/1998 5:18:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>nita Hill to be completely credible. That is mystifying. Hill followed Thomas around for 10 years and from job to job pretending to be his friend. That clearly shows she could not have felt harassed. Hill makes Tripp look like the "best friend of the year" in comparison. Hill was used by her liberal friends in an effort to "Bork" Thomas, purely and simply. >>Sorry but Anita Hill v. Paula Jones is just not an apples to apples comparison Agreed. Hill was hardly believable while Jones, given Clinton's perjury et al is believed by 70%.