Harrassment Laws

Q: Why not? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this. Is it your position that sexual harassment laws should not exist? Or shouldn't apply to public officials? Or to the executive branch of a state? Or of the US? Please clarify your suggestion that questions that are legal to ask under the law at a trial should not be asked

A: I think there are some people who see things that way. I can't speak for the OP, but I'm not one of them. But it's not clear to me how that justifies the point I think that you're trying to make. It appears to me that since there is no penalty that I know of for cruelty to ants, (the animal cruelty laws seem rather strange to me, only a few complain that feeding dogs meat might have been cruel to horses or cows or fish to cats cruel to catfish) you're suggesting that someone who perjures themselves during

a sexual harassment trial should receive no punishment at all? My two cents. The question should never have been asked because the Jones lawsuit was a farce that should never have come to trial. IMO, it was never about sexual harrassment. It was about saving face for Jones and more importantly taking down Clinton for her funders. They used the suit as the vehicle for forcing Clinton to either lie under oath or expose his extra-marital affair. On the other hand, if he committed perjury, he should nonetheless be treated like anybody else. It is of course an open question as to whether he committed perjury. I only note he has never even been criminally indicted.