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: miraje who wrote (33492)	2/11/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The basis for inquiry is the workplace locale, and the question of whether or not coercion or inducements were involved. That is not irrelevant, but a broader inquiry would be. Was sex or the refusal of sex the basis upon which the job and its rewards depended (i.e., raises, bonuses, and promotions being given or denied on that basis)? Is there a pattern in one's dealings with employees of favoritism, and therefore a reasonable basis for the expectation of retaliation, based upon the bestowal or refusal to bestow sexual favors? Mr. President, did you have a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, and subsequently get her a job in state government? Etc... It may be that the breadth of the inquiry about pattern is abusable, but it is distinguishable from a vague inquiry into one's sex life, and as such was allowed by the judge in the lawsuit, at which point it became Clinton's obligation to answer truthfully, or to decline to answer on 5th amendment grounds.

To: miraje who wrote (33492)	2/11/1999 10:38:00 AM
From: Thomas L Nielsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You should know that will not work. There are double standards, Bill Clinton is fair game but there cannot be even a hint that an accuser might be investigated!! The fact that Bill himself supported the law that allowed for the kind of discovery that he was subjected to, has never been directly addressed by any of them, although several of us, including you, have mentioned it. *OK, I'll give you my 2 cents. BTW, I do find Clintons support of that particular law a bit ironic. If a defendant in a sexual harassment case is forced to divulge prior consensual sexual activity (stupid and irrelevant, IMO), then the defendant should also be able to demand the same type of disclosures by his/her accuser(s). Good for the goose, good for the gander...*