-n (31 Dec 98) Dave Hamilton babbled to Jim Staal...

DH> About a message of Jim Staal to Dave Hamilton:

DH>  DH>> Whose business was it to ask him in the first place if it had
DH>  DH>> nothing to do with sex?

JS> The Paula Jones lawyer in the sexual harrassment case asked if he had
JS> extramarital affairs to establish a behaviour pattern. He lied.

DH> That's my point. What has it to do with the case? If a pattern of
DH> harassment could be established, it would be relevent. Consenting
DH> sex has zero do to with pushing the issue with an employee.

DH> People keep telling me the real crimes have nothing to do with
DH> sex. If that's the case, why are they not being prosecuted?

The 'real crimes' are obstruction of justice and perjury.
The prosecutors are apparently having some trouble making
the charges stick, at the moment.

One can commit either one of those crimes and still not
leave enough evidence to make a prosecution stick.

Whether Billy did exactly that is a question mark in my
mind.  I've heard both sides of the case by now, and still
have some doubts.  I think that Billy is just extra slick,
and knows how far he can go without stepping over the line.
He's been doing it for years.

Having said that, I don't think the word 'ethical' will in
any way describe him.

... I have bursts of lady-like behavior; fortunately, they don't last.

--- PPoint 2.00
* Origin: So What's Yer Point? (1:105/40.666)
SEEN-BY: 12/12 17/1 12 140/1 2 3 12 100 218/890 1001 270/101 396/1
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 3615/50 51 3804/180
PATH: 105/40 360 138/146 270/101 140/1 3615/50 218/1001