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: rvgent who wrote (36913)	3/5/1999 1:01:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Not at work they can't. Can you? >so two adults in our payroll can't have consensual sex? You know as well as I that it's none of our business what Clinton does in his private quarters. The Oval Office is not part of those private quarters. Period. And in public or private quarters it is highly inappropriate, yes sleazy etc, for the top man at a "company" such as the Federal Govt to be soliciting sexual favors from employees. Do you do that kind of thing? How many times has your secretary given you a blowjob at work? How often do you solicit sexual favors from employees whom you supervise?

To: rvgent who wrote (36913)	3/5/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: JBL	Respond to of 67261

rvgent, I see you listed the National Enquirer as one of your favorite link. Don't you think the National Enquirer falls into the category of privacy invaders that you seem to despise so much ? What do you see in the Enquirer that makes them worthy of being one of your favorite links ? Regards.

To: rvgent who wrote (36913)	3/5/1999 8:20:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

More ridiculous drivel. No one cares about the sex. PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Get it? JLA

To: rvgent who wrote (36913)	3/5/1999 8:23:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Article by a former Clinton supporter. Clinton Insults All Rape Victims Wall St. Journal 3-5-99 Cynthia Alksne, an MSNBC legal analyst Clinton Insults All Rape Victims By Cynthia Alksne, an MSNBC legal analyst and former sex-crimes prosecutor in New York and Washington. Women have solidly supported President Clinton through the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment trial. On balance, we thought he was good on so-called women's issues and were not willing to turn our backs on him based solely on a consensual relationship with a young intern. Despite this history of loyalty, feminists need to take a much harder look at Mr. Clinton in the wake of Juanita Broaddrick's allegations. Here, in a nutshell, is the problem: Ms. Broaddrick says the president raped her. Her word alone should be sufficient to require a serious response from the president, particularly in light of the support he has enjoyed from feminists and female voters. Instead, the president had his lawyer, David Kendall, issue a perfunctory statement that the charges were "absolutely false"--a statement Mr. Kendall is in no position to verify--and has refused to answer any specific questions. In essence, the president is suggesting that Juanita Broaddrick's corroborated word is not "evidence" and therefore does not merit a response. Yet one woman's word is enough to prosecute a rapist. Rape cases are routinely won or lost when a victim takes the stand to accuse the defendant of the crime. Indeed, the law explicitly permits a jury to convict a rapist on the word of the victim alone if her testimony is deemed credible. And anyone who watched Juanita Broaddrick's NBC News interview with Lisa Myers would have to conclude that, at a minimum, Ms. Broaddrick was a credible accuser. Ms. Broaddrick's accusations are even more troubling than a classic "he said, she said," rape allegation, because there is more evidence than just one woman's word. Her story is corroborated. She immediately told a friend about the rape; this same friend saw her immediately after her visit from Arkansas's then-attorney general. Her lip was swollen and blue from the alleged assault. She saw Ms. Broaddrick's pantyhose, which were torn in the crotch area. Ms. Broaddrick also told several other people that Mr. Clinton had raped her. But still, the only word from the president himself is an arrogant no-comment. It is true, as the president's supporters have noted, that we cannot know for sure what really happened in that hotel room 21 years ago. It is too late to obtain medical evidence. There is no police report. And we do not know Mr. Clinton's schedule on the day of the alleged rape. Instead, we have only one source of information that could unravel the mystery: Bill Clinton. The president could help matters by answering these questions: What, if anything, happened between him and Ms. Broaddrick? Was he in the hotel room with her? Did they have any physical or sexual contact? Did he rape her? What about consent? Does he have an alibi? Does he know of any motive for her to fabricate such a story? Even if Mr. Clinton answered these critical questions, women--and the groups that purport to represent them--should demand something more of their president: He should repudiate any suggestion that a woman's word itself is not enough to credibly support a rape allegation. Unless and until this occurs, groups such as the National Organization of Women and anyone else who has ever fought for rape victims should be outraged, and should be doing much more than issuing tepid press releases begging the White House not to trash Ms. Broaddrick. Feminists should also be outraged that the New York Times did not have one article about Ms. Broaddrick's allegations until five days after the story broke, and then only on page A16. And every feminist who has ever fought for tougher rape laws should ask herself these fundamental questions: What kind of man is Mr. Clinton? Do we have a sexual predator in the White House? A rapist? These are issues that need to be resolved by each of us individually. And we need answers from the president in order to judge the merits of these allegations. When I was a sex-crimes prosecutor, rapists often got at least eight years of public housing--in jail, not the White House. If these allegations are true, jail is where Mr. Clinton belongs. And the fact that the passage of time makes these allegations impossible to prove is no excuse for punishing future rape victims by raising the bar and suggesting that their word is not sufficient, credible evidence upon which to prosecute an alleged rape.