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: Neocon who wrote (35148)	2/23/1999 8:51:00 AM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

1)Reversing J.Wright is foregone, based on bc-ml testimony. What he did do is show that the direct evidence had no support. --No employment consequences; --no sexual/battery evidence. --quid pro quo, regardless. 2) Starr provides a little for everyone. Quid pro quo, interesting term for doing a little something for a lover. Where did anyone get idea the Pres was making advances, rather than returning them, until they became mutual? 3) <<As for the final disposition, I actually think it would have made it to a jury had it been re- instated.>>What are you saying? 4) AND, from the evidence you know about, do you Personally think BC harassed PJ. My meaning is: a) Did he come on to her as a date, whether in a socially acceptable way or a physically threatening way? [even I am skeptical, but also skeptical of her details] b) If he did come on to her, and by her refusing, did he create problems at her work? And c) Did ML have any parallel to any sexual harassement of PJ?