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: TigerPaw who wrote (28148)	1/15/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Nice dodge. So if a future republican president goes around grabbing his subordinates' body parts, you are saying you would support blocking pattern discovery if one of them sues?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (28148)	1/15/1999 1:35:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The judge did not rule there was no harrassment. The judge ruled there were no damages suffered. The current law stipulates sexual harrassment if one is denied promotion or demoted or other negative job actions because of sexual harrassment. The current law doesn't stipulate sexual harrassment in cases where people who reject sexual demands are denied the perks that go to those who accept sexual demands. That is, Paula can't sue just because she didn't get an offer from Revlon or a better state government job. Clinton's m.o. is to reward sexual favors.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (28148)	1/15/1999 2:27:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 67261

The liar was worried enough that the judge's ruling would be overturned that he agreed to pay Paula Jones $850,000 to avoid the possibility. There is every reason to believe that it would have been overturned now that all the facts that the liar so successfully ( and illegally ) kept hidden have been revealed. But we will never know for sure now because justice ( whatever that was in this case ) was thwarted by the actions of the chief law enforcer of the country. His totally selfish actions undermined the legitimate business of the Judicial Branch of government and that alone justifies his removal.