Henry Hyde, RIP

[sirs]

BTW, I don't think it's the end of the world that Bill lied about a fucking blow job.  It was nobody's God-damn business and he should never have been asked about it in the first place.

Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases.  Screw the woman, both judicially & literally

[Michael Tee]

<<Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases.  Screw the woman, both judicially & literally>>

Riiiiight.  Bill Clinton"sexually assaulted" and "harrassed" Monica.  He's a dangerous sexual offender.

ROTFLMFAO. Really.  Where you guys come up with this crap I don't know, but the fantasy and science-fiction gaming industry is just dying for people with an imagination like yours.  The scary thing, though, I don't know if it's imagination or if you really live in that alternate conservative universe of yours.

[sirs]

<<Well at least we know where Tee stands on sexual assault & harrasment cases.  Screw the woman, both judicially & literally>>

Riiiiight.  Bill Clinton"sexually assaulted" and "harrassed" Monica.  He's a dangerous sexual offender.

That wasn't the issue.  The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women.  As I said, per Tee, screw the woman
 

[BT]

Clinton was set up by a bitch named Lucinda Goldberg, and f*cked over by a hateful trator named Linda Tripp. Of course her father wanted to see her as a WH intern, but he was used too.

Goldberg knew Tripp, this is true. But your claim that Goldberg got Lewinsky the job is false.

I didn't see any mention of Lewinsky's father in the NY Times account. So i'm not sure who used him.

[Michael Tee]

<<The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women.  As I said, per Tee, screw the woman>>

Only in sirs' fantasy world was Clinton a "suspect in a sexual harrassment case," since Monica never claimed to have been sexually harrassed and no charges were ever laid.   I'd lay claim to being offended by the "Tee says, Screw the woman" lies, but hell, I have considered the source.  Always good for a laugh.

[BT]

Perhaps Tee needs to Google Paula Jones

[Plane]

<<The issue is how a suspect in a Sexual harrasment case, at least in Tee's book, should not even be asked about inappropriate sexual advances towards other women.  As I said, per Tee, screw the woman>>

Only in sirs' fantasy world was Clinton a "suspect in a sexual harrassment case," since Monica never claimed to have been sexually harrassed and no charges were ever laid.   I'd lay claim to being offended by the "Tee says, Screw the woman" lies, but hell, I have considered the source.  Always good for a laugh.

MT you really don't know anything about the case at all do you?

Monica never complained , Paula Jones and seven others did.

2.  Paula Jones/President Bill Clinton

Staying in the realm of the government, President Clinton himself came under fire for alleged sexual harassment. Paula Jones was a state employee when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. In 1991, she claimed that Clinton exposed himself and asked her for oral sex in a hotel room. Clinton denied all allegations.

After several rounds of filing, Jones's lawsuit was dismissed for failing to state a claim. During the appeals process, a settlement was reached. Jones dropped her suit against Clinton in exchange for $850,000. However, she never received an admission of guilt or an apology.

Jones's allegations paved the way for investigating the President's sex life. The Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment of President Clinton were big follow-ups to the Paula Jones case

https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article14380.html

Clinton chose (a) to hire one of Washington's highest-priced lawyers with, at the time he was hired, precious little experience in sexual harassment law, and (b) to spend in excess of $4 million in legal fees for what should otherwise have been a routine case costing him less than $100,000. In the process, Clinton has placed his presidency in peril. And for what? While it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, it didn't have to be this way.

................................

He stalled and delayed, waiting over three years before he deposed Jones. By then, she had changed lawyers, and taken all those "potentially embarrassing depositions from bimbos" we had warned him about. Moreover, giving Jones's lawyers all this time to research Bill's past is exactly what led to Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Jane Does 1 through 4, and a grand jury investigating Clinton for perjury, suborning perjury, and the obstruction of justice.

Why did Clinton choose a defense which ended up jeopardizing his presidency? Who knows? Maybe it was guilt. Or arrogance. Or paranoia. Maybe all three.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v30/ai_20856047

[Michael Tee]

IIRC, the "lying under oath" accusations did not involve the Paula Jones case but arose out of the Lewinsky affair.  When I said that the underlying incident (a consensual BJ) was trivial and Clinton shouldn't have been subjected to questioning about it, sirs leapt in with his usual absurd bullshit, claiming I was insensitive to the plight of women victims of sexual abuse and harassment, which of course I proceeded to give the ridicule it deserved.

Now sirs' defenders are leaping in with ANOTHER case, and trying to transfer my remarks to the Paula Jones case, since they obviously failed to support sirs' ridiculous accusations in the context in which they arose.  In other words, if my words are sound in their original context, then give them a false context by dragging them into a completely different legal case, thereby "proving" how insensitive Tee is to the plight of . . . .

Don't you guys ever get tired of your intellectual dishonesty?  [not including sirs in this this time, he didn't involve himself in trying to put my words in false context]  Because I can tell you, it's getting very tiring to me.  I like to debate issues, I think you just really debase the quality of the debate when you take words deliberately out of context and turn an issue-based debate into an discussion of your sophistry.

[Plane]

IIRC, the "lying under oath" accusations did not involve the Paula Jones case but arose out of the Lewinsky affair.  When I said that the underlying incident (a consensual BJ) was trivial and Clinton shouldn't have been subjected to questioning about it, sirs leapt in with his usual absurd bullshit, claiming I was insensitive to the plight of women victims of sexual abuse and harassment, which of course I proceeded to give the ridicule it deserved.

Now sirs' defenders are leaping in with ANOTHER case, and trying to transfer my remarks to the Paula Jones case, since they obviously failed to support sirs' ridiculous accusations in the context in which they arose.  In other words, if my words are sound in their original context, then give them a false context by dragging them into a completely different legal case, thereby "proving" how insensitive Tee is to the plight of . . . .

Don't you guys ever get tired of your intellectual dishonesty?  [not including sirs in this this time, he didn't involve himself in trying to put my words in false context]  Because I can tell you, it's getting very tiring to me.  I like to debate issues, I think you just really debase the quality of the debate when you take words deliberately out of context and turn an issue-based debate into an discussion of your sophistry.

No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.

That was the case he was fighting when he was asked about his other pecadillos.

[BT]

Patiently awaits Tee having his eureka moment.

[sirs]

Perhaps Tee needs to Google Paula Jones

Precisely.  This attempt at "don't look here, look over there", is pretty lame

[Michael Tee]

<<No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.>>

Yikes.  Then I owe you an apology.  And BT.   Because I was wrong on the context.  I was sure that he denied sex with Monica when he was under oath in Monica-related proceedings.

But even so, questions about sex with Monica were clearly out of line in a case involving sexual harrassment of Paula, unless there was a similar pattern of abuse in both cases, which there obviously wasn't, since Monica's case even according to Monica was consensual.   So my comments about the irrelevancy of the question even in a case involving sexual abuse and/or harrassment were NOT dismissive of sexual assault victims and sirs' comments on my "screw the woman" attitude are still ridiculous.

[BT]

Clinton signed into law the very expansion of the scope of questioning regarding the history of harassment defendants to much fanfare from womens groups earlier in his presidency.

hoisted by his own petard so to speak.

[Plane]

<<No ,he was under oath because Paula Jones dragged him into court.>>

Yikes.  Then I owe you an apology.  And BT.   Because I was wrong on the context.  I was sure that he denied sex with Monica when he was under oath in Monica-related proceedings.

But even so, questions about sex with Monica were clearly out of line in a case involving sexual harrassment of Paula, unless there was a similar pattern of abuse in both cases, which there obviously wasn't, since Monica's case even according to Monica was consensual.   So my comments about the irrelevancy of the question even in a case involving sexual abuse and/or harrassment were NOT dismissive of sexual assault victims and sirs' comments on my "screw the woman" attitude are still ridiculous.

There have never been any court cases brought by Monica.
I would bet that she would rather  not be so well remembered as she is.

[Michael Tee]

<<There have never been any court cases brought by Monica.
<<I would bet that she would rather  not be so well remembered as she is.>>

I know that Monica never sued, which is why I used the phrase "Monica-related proceedings," which could encompass, for example, legislative inquiries, special commissions, committee investigations, etc.

The scope of questioning in sexual assault or harassment cases may well have been expanded, although as I understand legal reform in that area it tends more to restricting questioning about the woman's sex life.  But even if the questioning were expanded legally, I have a very hard time seeing how - - in the absence of allegations of a pattern of similar-fact abuse - - questions about sex with Monica were relevant to Paula Jones' lawsuit.