On Mar 9, 12:31 pm, Scott in Florida <askifyouw... (AT) mindspring (DOT) net>
wrote:
Was the intern over 18 and was he/she a consenting partner? If yes,
then nothing would happen. You sound jealous that Bill got a blow
job. Take a few Viagras and go find a blow job. You'll feel much
better after.

And remember, Bill lied but nobody died. People may have even died as
the direct result of the outing of Valery Plame. It's possible some
of her contacts were killed.

A

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote

Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things.
Meanwhile, this country has no law prohibiting the president from getting a
blowjob from an intern in the White House, at any time of the day or night.



The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so
your second question doesn't matter.

On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu... (AT) my-deja (DOT) com>
wrote:
It is coming to that soon. First we should start with Alberto
Gonsoles. We need to start somewhere. Should a lawyer be the US
Attorney General if he/she doesn't believe the US constitution
guarantees habeas corpus? I don't think so.

A

"dbu" <question-mark (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote


.....and you're here to provide everyone with a clue. Go for it.

On Mar 9, 1:04 pm, dbu <question-m... (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote:
..> You are talking out of your ass again. You have no clue.

But you always recognize my voice, and compliment my breath.

I guess you missed Alberto Gonzoles' testimony in front of congress.
In fact, AG made the habeas corpus statement as an answer to an Arlen
Spector question and Arlen sat there stunned for about 10 seconds.
Everybody associated with Bush is incompetent and very dangerous to
the constitution.

A

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Show me a major corporation that does not....

--

Scott in Florida

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:58:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time...

--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote


None that I ever worked for, including Merril Lynch and Kraft. Which
corporate rules do YOU have access to, or are you using a crystal ball
today?

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote

Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted,
but not taken to court.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:47:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Wrongo..........



Hey Legend in your own mind....

You misspelled one of the companies you supposedly worked for. They
probably fired you.

Here are a few of the rules for one of your 'former employers'....



How about Merrill Lynch?


Access to the Internet
Only authorized connections to the Internet are permitted and access
must be accomplished via an approved secure gateway. Merrill Lynch
employees are not permitted to link to the Internet from Merrill Lynch
offices via modem dial-up services or other external service providers
without the express approval of the Office of General Counsel.

Employees should exercise good judgment when using the Internet for
personal reasons during business hours. Under Merrill Lynch policy,
employees may not:

*
transmit, copy or download any material, including sexually
explicit images or messages and materials containing racial, ethnic or
other slurs, that may defame, embarrass, threaten, offend or harm a
Merrill Lynch person or client or the general public;


Obligation to Report Violations or Misconduct
All Merrill Lynch persons are expected to act quickly and effectively
against violations of the Guidelines and the firm’s policies and
procedures. Employees are obligated to report any known or perceived
violation of law, regulation or Merrill Lynch policy and Guidelines to
one of the following resources: their manager, a Leadership & Talent
Management representative, the Ethics Hotline, or the Office of
General Counsel. If you are unsure about the best course of action,
you should consult with one of the above resources. Likewise, if you
are not comfortable raising an ethical issue or discussing a possible
or actual violation with your manager, or you have done so and the
manager has not responded to the problem, you must seek assistance
elsewhere within Merrill Lynch and report the matter through one of
the alternative resources, that is, a Leadership & Talent Management
representative, the Office of General Counsel, or the Ethics Hotline.

The Office of General Counsel is available to assist with business
conduct and ethical issues that give you concern. Nevertheless, in
many instances, you must rely on your own personal ethical standards
in assessing difficult situations. Consider the following questions:

*
Is the proposed action legal?
*
Does it endanger anyone's financial stability, life, health or
safety?
*
Is it consistent with Merrill Lynch policy?
*
Will it enhance the company's reputation?
*
Would we lose clients if this action were known to them?
*
Would you like to see it become a general industry or public
practice?
*
Would you be embarrassed if all the details were known by your
manager, peers, subordinates, family or friends, or if they were
published in a newspaper?
*
Could this action in any way be interpreted as, or appear to be,
inappropriate behavior?
*
What would you think of your manager, peers or subordinates if
any of them behaved similarly?
*
Does the action you are considering make you feel uncomfortable?
Are you compromising your own personal ethics in any way?

Though romantic relationships between employees and situations where
an employee is working with a relative are not prohibited at Merrill
Lynch, Merrill Lynch policy does impose special requirements when one
of these employees remains in the other employee’s (the
manager/supervisor) chain of command. In such circumstances, Merrill
Lynch policy requires that steps be taken to ensure that such
relationships do not disrupt the group and that the manager/supervisor
is not responsible for supervising, evaluating or compensating the
other employee.

--

Scott in Florida