SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (20952)12/17/1998 12:17:00 AM
From: one_less  Respond to of 67261
 
<<That is the point>> True that there would be no Paula Jones case. If the "its just about sex" point could have been made, fine. Most of the countries citizens are going on that. Day by day more and more of them are seeing it differently. One of the points for me is the point changed when bc decided to lie, lie some more, obstruct the justice process, lie some more. These things give evidence to me that the man is not trust worthy in more than just private sexual encounters. The point for many of us now is we don't trust him and we are left with nagging suspicions about all of his involvements. He's not just another citizen he has responsibilities to us and he is not worthy of our trust.



To: pezz who wrote (20952)12/17/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
I just recently heard a report on Paula's evidence. It seems bc shows up and enters her room. I'm sure that was fine and lots of enthusiasm for his visit. He closes the door and backs her to the couch where she becomes seated. He puts his hands on her skirt and moves them up to her crotch area. She's petrified. He unzips and asks for a bj. She bolts for the door. As she's passing he remarks that she is a smart person and he knows her boss so and so real well.

The guy screwed up here. If you want to say its just about sex, then make it clear for everyone what kind of situations he preyed on and that there were victims, several it seems. It wasn't just the many casual consenting partners that are none of our business, and he victimized the women further by abusing the power of his office to discredit them in their public and private lives.



To: pezz who wrote (20952)12/17/1998 1:07:00 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Sorry- sexual antics in the workplace are a no-no whether consensual or not, and the fact that a defendant engages in workplace sex is, imo, material to whether he might accost a woman who did NOT accept his advances. The probative value would outweigh the prejudicial nature of the evidence.