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: jim kelley who wrote (20936)	12/16/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

He lied in a sexual harassment case. One of the issues in those cases is- does the defendant have a pattern of sexual misconduct in the workplace? This was not private sex (although it was consensual) this was WORKPLACE sex- and the man made phone calls in the line of business while having sex. Now any employer finding out this kind of behavior was going on would fire the individuals involved. WE are the employer. Fast forward to the LEGAL charges. He lied, and it WAS material. Do you honestly think if that dress had not been found that Paula Jones would have received a settlement offer? Clinton would still be denying everything. Clinton would happily have denied Paula her day in court, her chance at justice, and would willingly have remained silent as the media and everyone else made Lewinsky out to be a nympho nut. So he lies in court, it is material, and he obstructs the efforts of everyone involved to find the truth. Of course this was embarrassing material but every man or woman who is dragged into court on a matter that involves sexual conduct is victim to this embarrassment. Do we now have the "it was embarrassing" defense, to perjury? Further, as a parent of girls I am not thrilled to find all the Dem's jumping up and down about private consensual sex- when this happened in the workplace. I guess the only sexual harassment my girls would be protected from under the Democrats would be sexual harassment from Republicans. The irony is that the Dem's are normally such stand up folks about harassment- until now.

To: jim kelley who wrote (20936)	12/17/1998 1:11:00 AM
From: Sjp	Respond to of 67261

>>>Perhaps next year the Republican house will pass a bill making it illegal for Democrats to have consensual sex.<<< I just don't think that will happen. But gosh, thanks for the intelligent comment.

To: jim kelley who wrote (20936)	12/17/1998 6:45:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>Perjury is prosecuted when there is an underlying criminal act. Your legal training is obviously worth everything you paid for it, which we can only presume is nothing. Perjury is prosecuted arising from civil cases where there is no criminal act other than the perjury itself. Several people who have been sent to prison for far less than what Clinton did testified to that fact before the committee. Clinton committed perjury and he obstructed justice by tampering with witnesses and evidence.