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 (10452)	10/20/1998 10:50:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

Bad news for Bill - Looks like the Court of Appeals may grant Paula's wish: Judges focus on Lewinsky affair during Jones' appeal bid L. A. Times October 21, 1998 Robert L. Jackson ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A federal appeals court panel suggested Tuesday that President Clinton's affairwith former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky might have to be part of a reconstituted lawsuit by Paula Corbin Jones. While the three judges did not tip their hands on whether they favored reinstituting Jones' sexual harassment suit against the president, they questioned a federal district judge's ruling earlier this year that Clinton's dealings with Lewinsky were not relevant to Jones' complaint. The judges' emphasis on the Lewinsky matter could spell trouble for Clinton. If the panel orders the Jones lawsuit reinstated, the revived case against Clinton could be stronger than the original, which was dismissed in April by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Asked by Judge Pasco M. Bowman whether Lewinsky was not part of ''a pattern and practice'' of the president's conduct, Clinton attorney Amy Sabrin acknowledged that if Jones' case went to trial, the Lewinsky matter ''could become an issue.'' Judge C. Arlen Beam said that testimony about Lewinsky might be considered by a jury ''as similar conduct'' by Clinton. Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton in 1994 alleging that the then-Arkansas governor summoned her to his room in a Little Rock hotel in 1991 and crudely asked her to perform oral sex. In dismissing the case, Wright said Jones' attorneys had failed to prove that Clinton's alleged advance constituted sexual assault or that Jones was punished in the workplace for rebuffing it. While Clinton's lawyers praised the dismissal as proper and legally correct, Jones' attorneys appealed the ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court, which has jurisdiction over a broad Midwestern region that includes Arkansas, is expected to rule on the case by the end of this year. The Jones case has dogged Clinton for four years, and it spawned the investigation that threatens to end his presidency. It was in his deposition in the Jones case last January that Clinton denied having ''sexual relations'' with Lewinsky. In August, the president admitted that he had had an ''inappropriate relationship'' with her. Earlier this month the House of Representatives voted to investigate whether Clinton should be impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering in the matter. James A. Fisher, arguing on behalf of Jones, said he would like to have authority from the court to collect more evidence about the Lewinsky matter to demonstrate for jurors that it was highly relevant to Jones' case. He said a close friend of Clinton's, Washington attorney Vernon E. Jordan Jr., helped Lewinsky find a better job after she performed sexual favors for the president. ''She (Lewinsky) consented to his advances and she got the job benefit,'' Fisher said. Jones and her lawyers argue that because she rejected Clinton's advance, subsequently she was given less responsibility in her job for a state commission. (Begin optional trim) ''I think we all agree that Paula Jones would have a solid gold case, as a state employee, if she had performed oral sex on the governor,'' Fisher told the judges. ''Why should she have a weaker case because she rejected him?'' But Judge Donald R. Ross, interjected, ''I think there's some question as to who made the first advance,'' Clinton or Lewinsky. (End optional trim) Clinton has denied propositioning Jones, and his attorneys have said state records show she continued to get merit raises and cost-of-living pay increases after the encounter. Clinton attorney Sabrin said that in the alleged Clinton-Jones encounter there was ''no physical force, rape, assault -- none of those physical factors'' that courts sometimes have judged to constitute isolated acts of sexual harassment. ''She said she wanted to leave (the hotel room) and she left,'' Sabrin said of Jones. Since Wright dismissed the case, the Supreme Court has lowered the bar for plaintiffs bringing sexual harassment lawsuits. In a ruling last June against Burlington Industries, the court said plaintiff Kimberly Ellerth did not have to prove she had suffered a ''tangible job consequence'' to sue for her supervisor's alleged harassment at work. After Tuesday's hearing, chief Clinton lawyer Robert S. Bennett and leading Jones lawyer Donovan Campbell Jr. told reporters they would continue negotiations over the next several days to try to resolve the case out of court. Jones' latest offer to settle for $2 million -- with half to be paid by a New York real estate tycoon -- has been rejected by Bennett. 209.67.114.212

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10452)	10/20/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: Jay Scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

You're right, Michelle, he doesn't bash women, he just uses them for sexual gratification and then tosses them aside. He's not above pandering to them, though, for the almighty vote. That he does a very good job at. So to summarize, (1) you don't like Republicans because the Bible says you should stay at home, and (2) Bill is a good President simply because he hasn't gotten in the way of technology. Quite a legacy. So much for his place in history. I'll agree with the not getting in the way part, but when he lambasts Congress for doing the same thing, it does reek a bit. And no, Quayle is not the answer, either. That whistling sound you hear is the wind rushing through his ears.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10452)	10/21/1998 2:12:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Hello Michelle, let's look at a few things. re >Oh but heres the problem - the Bible says, that women who want to have children should stay home with the kids right? What a bummer!< Wrong. The Bible never mentions whether or not mothers should work outside the home. If someone can prove me mistaken, I'd be happy to look at what the Bible says on the subject. re >Guess Im just a meanie but when I see a dufus like Dan Quayle up there spewing family values claptrap and portray me as some sort of evil villians while he sits and reaps the benefits of all that Ive done, I just get kinda mad, ya know? At least, Clinton seems sympathetic to me. He doesnt bash me, etc. He doesnt criticize working women and imply that stay at home moms are actually as much to society than anything we have done and the huge sacrifices we made.< First off, just to clarify, when Vice President Dan Quayle remarked on the role an actress was playing on TV (how long ago was that? Must have been at least 7-8 years ago), he was criticizing the glorification of single mothers, not whether or not the mother stayed at home. Second, you cannot tell me that you are still feeling the sting of those remarks. No, I don't believe it. You're not an actress nor a mother, for one thing. But the biggest reason I don't believe that you continue to be bitter about those remarks is this: It is not a long ago Vice President whose views you as a mother would care about. The views you care about are the views of your children. Third, forget about Clinton "not bashing you". Clinton tells you want he thinks you want to hear, PERIOD, and it matters not to him whether the words are good for you, bad for you, the truth, or shades thereof. Let's look at this a bit further. Let's be Michelle's children: "I'm so proud of my mommy. All summer long, she gets me up in the morning and brings me to day-care, where I spend 8 hours with a bunch of other kids whose moms or dads had brought them there. The day-care lady makes us lunch, and we learn more things (like we did in school for nine months), and we go on field trips, like we went to the zoo. I wish my mommy and daddy could have been there with me to see the animals though. But my mommy has a real nice car. She calls it her beemer. I'm so proud of how much she sacrifices to be able to have that car. I know she would rather go to the zoo with me or spend the day at the park, but her work...she says it's more important. And she makes a lot of money. "Tributing to teknoligy andhancmants", she says is what she does. I think she works on 'puters, like the one the lady at the day-care has in her office-room. Another thing the lady at the day-care does is make us dinner. My mom wants her to, so me and my mom can spend the evening playing Parchesi. At least, that's the way it was supposed to be. But usually after we get home from day-care my mom spends time with stuff she brings home from work. Some day mom says she's going to stay home more, but I dunno. She has to fly out of town for a biznis meeting this weekend. This means I get dumped off at D.A.D.s house. I hate dad's girlfriend, because she talks about me to dad like I wasn't there. Just jerks her head towards me and says, 'you know, Her'".

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10452)	10/21/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<He doesnt criticize working women and imply that stay at home moms are actually as much to society than anything we have done and the huge sacrifices we made.>> Rich and deep. Careful there, we're going to have to put in on a halo if this goes much further.