[Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it" - and Tim is?

[Edna Wilmington]

Forum Members,

There's at least one potential problem with Mr.
Ramalingam's legal theory: Monica put out. Why would
President Clinton harass her by exercising indirect
firing authority when she gave him what he wanted?

I know, they were in love, but what might El
Presidente have done if Monica didn't put out and
threatened to report him for propositioning her, or
better yet, if she did put out and then threatened to
go public?

Might she have faced a similar fate as Linda Tripp
over at the Pentagon?  What was her lawsuit about?
Yeah, that's right, the $595,000.00 lawsuit she won.
That's quite a chunk of change for pettiness.  Woops,
I must be a cynic or conspiracy theorist. Of course,
the White House had nothing to do with those Pentagon
leaks.

Anyone remember how much this stuff mattered during
the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas?

Edna Wilmington


--- 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.comŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/