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: one_less who wrote (35229)	2/25/1999 10:56:00 PM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I'm not buying this pretense that you can't find cause or method in Clinton. Some people are still denying he did any thing, some are saying so what they don't care. You? You are saying you can't see any substance to the charges. Come clean.>> Brees, based on all I understand of the case, and all the surrounding issues, and basing my conclusion on truth, as best I can see it all, this I believe is true: Bill Clinton did not sexually harass Paula Jones. The alleged elements of the case are: 1) a pass 2) an indecent exposure 3) a threat 4) followup job difficulties. Indecent exposure is not sexual harassment, nor part of the case. The threat would be harassment had there been a complaint soon after. With the passing months, the actuality of the threat was dependant on 4). Either 3) was shown true by 4) or disregarded as without believability, words in the heat of the moment. Clinton did not pursue job harassment. This is the evidence of the trial. Moreover, it is the evidence gleaned from the rape allegation. The man is hit and run sexually and a lone wolf. Rejection is compartmentalized and forgotten. Leaving only the pass, and the Monica incidents. Clinton had sparse contact with Jones, on the job. It was his power, overall, not the job connection that put Jones at risk. Hundreds of men were in that city with the same power over Jones. If the powerful socializing with the powerless is criminal, then we have exceeded the ability of the rule of law. If Bill can not give the minor attentions he gave to Monica, one he personally cared about, without being a criminal, then again the rule of law has exceeded its limits. Clinton may be many things, may be even truly horrible things, but a sexual harasser is not going to be among them. No law can sift so fine that his methods can be separated from the intended. Supporting Good Law requires supporting Bad Clinton--in this instance. If he is as dirty as claimed, there will be other good busting instances. If the case is solid, I've no problem. But, the few, dire men who tried to force through this thin case, where law is newest and weakest, playing against the highest level, ignoring the grave consequences to the law, and society, are dangerous, revolutionary men. For us, early--not when 50, powerful, and disguised--identifying and correcting the sexually kinky and the revolutionarily rabid is the only way to avoid the problems inherent in any rule of law.