Should changing the sexual harassment laws have been on the top of Nancy Pelosi's "to do" list?

Question

A change in the sexual harassment law, signed by President Clinton, led to his own impeachment. Normally the law does not allow evidence of "similar incidents" to be admitted in either a civil or a criminal a case. (Whether or not someone robbed other banks is deemed irrelevant to whether the person robbed the bank for which he or she has been charged.) Under the changed law, though, evidence of other instances of "sex for advancement" (remember the Revlon job offer to Monica Lewinsky?) were admissable. Clinton lied about them, and his problems began.

I assume Pelosi opposed Clinton's impeachment. Does she favor repealing the law I described? Why or why not? Or does she feel perjury and obstruction of justice are not sufficient grounds for impeachment?

Thanks for any reasoned responses.

Excellent point! but the investigation all came about due to the original case, no?

Answer 1

I think you have some misinformation about the Clinton impeachment. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury. The law that you refer to here has no bearing on the issue.

The grand jury is not a criminal trial, it is an investigation. The rules are different.

Answer 2

A ********
is nothing compared to Repulican war crimes.....

and SEN Craig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal-oral_sex