From: "Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison@dueprocess.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 04:53:22 +0800
To: Bill Stewart <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: LAST WORD: Re: Clinton--Why I am Chortling
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980914122452.0086a750@pop.mhv.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980916055715.00910cf0@pop.mhv.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 09:29 PM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Obviously you Just Don't Get It.  :-)
>The argument tends to be along the lines that if power weren't
>so disparate, she wouldn't have to resort to sexual bribery to get 
>what she wants, she could just take it, or trade for it as an equal.
>
>Because, not being totally stupid about Clinton, she thought it might
>be convenient to have some evidence around after the fact?
>Whether that's for emotional blackmail, or basic blackmail, 
>or life insurance, or for convincing Hillary that Bill was hers now, 
>or convincing some future publisher that she hadn't made it all up, 
>or just because it seemed like it might turn out to be useful in the future,
>who knows.  Lots of possibilities.  Or maybe it was just a memento
>of a lovely evening :-)  Or of a time when she had the President
>wrapped around her little finger.


Bill -

I was pointing out that one (male or female) doesn't save such items of
unwashed clothing unless there's a distorted reason for doing so.  Like
you, I can only speculate as to why, but it reflects a premeditation on her
part - which supports my position that she's not a *victim*.

A woman who comes on to her male employer and, when he accepts her
"invitation", cannot turn around and allege: "Poor me.  I was a victim.  He
is so powerful."  I don't give a damn whether her employer was the
President or the chief janitor.  To contend otherwise is to suggest that
*every* woman in an executive position, private or public, slept her way to
get the position because of the initial imbalance of power.  I do not
accept this.

Clinton has chased skirts for most of his adult life (as an article which
was posted points out). As the "chaser", he's used his various positions of
power to his advantage, and I agree wholeheartedly that there's an
imbalance of power when he acted in this manner.

So, my bottom (and final) line is:

1.  Clinton has been a womanizer for most, if not all of his political life;

2.  Monica was not a victim in _this_ scenario;

3.  Clinton is guilty of perjury;

4.  Clinton used his friends to publicly support his lie and publicly
disgraced his daughter (Hillary's been through this before);

5.  My tax money has been spent to publish a report that he engages in
extra-marital sex and lies about it (gee, a real surprise!); and

6.  Even if I "Don't Get It" - Bill damned sure got it, and got it, and got
it... ;)






**********************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.          |  Never doubt that a small group
Poughkeepsie, New York           |  of citizens can change the world.
mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com  |  Indeed, it is the only thing that
http://www.dueprocess.com        |  ever has. -- Margaret Mead
**********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.