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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (12248)	5/8/1999 8:15:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

All the months on the boards and I've never understood the fallacy in interpreting the scandal thus: Despite years of data/evidence concerning the impact of the President on Paula's work environment, even Judge Susan would have dismissed the case based on there being nothing but essential truth to Mr. Clinton's assertion that any such encounter was insignificant to him and forgotten immediately. [So many to hit on, so little time for regretting misses?] In other words, he did not sexually harasse her. Charges might could be made about the night in question, but that was either not her charge, or overwhelmed by the later facts [above]. Instead, Judge Susan allowed an extended discovery. Any discovery during that discovery can, at best, tell only whether he can be a sexual harasser, but it can not weigh more than the historical, employment facts already presented. So discovery here was a call, and it seems a bad call. But worse, Judge Susan allowed discovery to stray, nee focus on, the President's sex life, unrelated to criminal sex. You probably remember the judge wrestling with that odd definition of sex. Again a call, predicated on a questionable call, so more likely to be wrong. Since the law and plaintiff was satisfied to the charge, and each additional ruling was farther along a worthless [to law] and dangerous [to defendant] road, the law let President Clinton down, not the reverse. What sorely disappointed me about the whole bruhaha, was the opportunity to address one of the stickiest areas of any system of law: How much must a citizen take in damage, time, and suffering when the law has gone wrong before taking steps to protect oneself? I don't even claim I'm right to support the man, but I surely do not see it as clearly as most. I would appreciate anyone who can point to the flaws in my scenerio.