Harassment Lawyers

Q: Joel, he was accused (by Paula Jones) of asking a subordinate for a blow job. That is called sexual harassment by the law and courts. Now, Paula has the right to find out if he (Clinton) is in the habit of asking other young ladies working for him for a blow job. Clinton lied! We all know that Monica did give he the requested blow job and we have th DNA to prove it. So, yes, in this case I/we think it should be legal for the government to put someone in front of a Grand Jury and ask them about their private, consensual sex life?

A: Giving or getting a blow job is not a crime or a civil offense. The testimony in question may or may not have been knowingly false (see the definition of "sexual relations" supplied by the Jones team, and ask yourself why these highly-paid sexual harassment lawyers failed to explicitly include oral sex, the prime act with which they were concerned, in this definition ... hmmm ... ), it certainly could not have been material (since the case was thrown out of court for lack of legal merit), so what you're left with is that the president tried to cover up an aspect of his private life that no one had any legal right to investigate in the first place. That simple. it was not "re-opened". The Fed. District Ct. found the Jones suit to be *without legal merit* and they threw it out (summary judgment granted in favor of President Clinton). That is as far as it went at the District Court level. The Jones team then filed an appeal with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which, having lost at the District Court level, they had the right to do. The fact that they chose to appeal says nothing about the *merits* of that appeal. The settlement reached amounted to nothing more than the termination of that appellate process by the Jones team. And, as far as "buying her off", he had every right to settle if he so chose. Settlement offers had been on the table (from both sides) for a long time. The Jones team finally realized that things weren't going to get any better, and they decided to come down to basically the sum that Clinton had been offering all along. See the following site for more details : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline... As a suggested side-issue (since you usually try to bring up a side-issue to avoid admitting you got your facts wrong), maybe you can explain to me whether or not you feel that Paula Jones should be required to pay President Clinton's legal bills (after all, you advocate a "loser-pays" system, right? and the court threw out PJ's suit, right? Thus, she lost and should be required to pay for the costs of Clinton's defense

Discuss It!

Most Popular Articles

More

Marketplace

Related Articles

More

Related Categories

More

Recently Added

More

Other Great Sites