Should The Democratic Congress Repeal The Sexual Harrasment Lawsuit Rule That Caused Clinton Trouble?
Q: Should the Democratic congress repeal the sexual harrasment lawsuit rule that caused Clinton trouble?
Someone asked a question about Clinton and adultery here, and it reminded me of something.
Paula Jones' attorneys were allowed to ask Bill Clinton about sexual ralationships (consensual or non-conselsual) with employees and interns because federal law - I believe one Clinton himself signed - allowed it. Specifically, the law allows a plaintiff in a sexual harrasment case to introduce evidence of a pattern of "sex for favors" or harrasment, or something of that nature. I recall that Clinton was apparently helpful in getting Monica Lewinsky a job offer at Revlon, and one might argue that such an offer would not have been extended but for the "special relationship" between her and Clinton.
So, should the law be changed? Should the Democrats, now that they are back in power, do it, if they feel Clinton was treated unfairly?
Ancient history, yes, but this is the first time they are back in control.
What say you?
A: No, I don't think it should be repealed. Mind you, I hate Kenneth Starr and I hate how such a big fuss was made over a hummer that was given in the Oval Office, but I think that the rule is perfectly just and anyone who breaks the law should be made to face the consequences for his/her actions