English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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?

2007-06-18 04:40:37 · 3 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

3 answers

No, I don't think it should be repealed.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.

2007-06-18 04:51:18 · answer #1 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1 0

certainly, there is not any longer something that Democrats did mutually as in congress that led to the financial crumple. Republicans are purely finding for some thing... something accountable Democrats for. the actuality: in the time of 2006 - 2008 Democrats could no longer bypass something as a results of fact if Republicans did no longer get their way, Bush could veto it. So, in 2006 - 2008 Democrats could no longer do something. They tried, however the GOP shot down each thing that the Dem's tried to do. this is approximately as precise an answer which you will get.

2016-09-28 00:45:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think it's obvious that Clintoon is a pervert and should have been removed form office. Now dems are witch hunting trying to do the same to Bush. They better hurry. He only has another 18 months.... I'm sick of those dem fools wasting tax payer money being so juvenile....

2007-06-18 04:48:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers