[Vision2020] Sunil's forgetting it
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:24:52 -0800 (PST)
--0-2139374100-1075011892=:90778
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sunil,
Two words: Clinton settled.
You say that it was just to make the suit go away?
Could be, but how do you know that?
Hmm....do ya think that maybe his attorneys thought that umm....Jones could prove damages?
Could be too. Actually pretty likely.
No one said Clinton's disbarment was about sexual harassment. It was about perjury like you say.
I wonder how the Demos would have reacted if a GOP pres. had been involved in a suit like this. A GOP Pres. exposing himself to an underling. Hmmm...I can just see Democraticunderground.com lighting up right now.
TL
Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim,
You write:
"What is it about 1. a state's chief executive exposing himself to a low-level underling over which he could indirectly have firing authority; 2. having sex with women under him in the White House; 3. groping women who work for him. etc. that you don't call sexual harassment."
Did you take employment law in law school? If you did, then you already know that conduct as or more egregious than what was alleged ( and that you refer to in #1) is not necessarily sexual harassment under the law. If it occurred, yes, it was tremendously crass. But did anyone allege that Clinton ACTUALLY exercised what you call his indirect firing authority? No, because that didn't happen. Did she suffer any negative consequences on her job in terms of reduced pay or hours? No. What were her damages? Not enough, if any, to get an attorney without an axe to grind.
Do I think #s 2 & 3 are sexual harassment? Depends, doesn't it, on whether they are consensual or not? If not, then they may possibly rise to sexual harassment; again, don't you want to know about damages before making an absolute statement? If they are consensual, then they're not sexual harassment; it's still not a good idea, but that's another matter.
Are you saying the Arkansas Bar took action because of alleged sexual harassment? You know better than that. And let's not pretend it was about sexual harassment, as you claim. It was about a group of lawyers who were able to use the Jones suit to pry into his life until, like an ass, he stepped on the item he should have kept in his pants all along. After that it was about perjury, not sexual harassment.
Sunil
---------------------------------
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! _____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
--0-2139374100-1075011892=:90778
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Sunil,</DIV>
<DIV> Two words: Clinton settled.</DIV>
<DIV> You say that it was just to make the suit go away?</DIV>
<DIV> Could be, but how do you know that? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Hmm....do ya think that maybe his attorneys thought that umm....Jones could prove damages? </DIV>
<DIV> Could be too. Actually pretty likely. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> No one said Clinton's disbarment was about sexual harassment. It was about perjury like you say. </DIV>
<DIV> I wonder how the Demos would have reacted if a GOP pres. had been involved in a suit like this. A GOP Pres. exposing himself to an underling. Hmmm...I can just see Democraticunderground.com lighting up right now. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> TL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <BR><BR><B><I>Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>Tim, </P>
<P>You write:</P>
<P>"What is it about 1. a state's chief executive exposing himself to a low-level underling over which he could indirectly have firing authority; 2. having sex with women under him in the White House; 3. groping women who work for him. etc. that you don't call sexual harassment."</P>
<P>Did you take employment law in law school? If you did, then you already know that conduct as or more egregious than what was alleged ( and that you refer to in #1) is not necessarily sexual harassment under the law. If it occurred, yes, it was tremendously crass. But did anyone allege that Clinton ACTUALLY exercised what you call his indirect firing authority? No, because that didn't happen. Did she suffer any negative consequences on her job in terms of reduced pay or hours? No. What were her damages? Not enough, if any, to get an attorney without an axe to grind. </P>
<P>Do I think #s 2 & 3 are sexual harassment? Depends, doesn't it, on whether they are consensual or not? If not, then they may possibly rise to sexual harassment; again, don't you want to know about damages before making an absolute statement? If they are consensual, then they're not sexual harassment; it's still not a good idea, but that's another matter. </P>
<P>Are you saying the Arkansas Bar took action because of alleged sexual harassment? You know better than that. And let's not pretend it was about sexual harassment, as you claim. It was about a group of lawyers who were able to use the Jones suit to pry into his life until, like an ass, he stepped on the item he should have kept in his pants all along. After that it was about perjury, not sexual harassment. <BR><BR>Sunil</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
<A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2746??PS=">Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! </A>_____________________________________________________ List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/"><b>Try it!</b></a>
--0-2139374100-1075011892=:90778--