Dirty Republican Congressman admits taking bribes.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I wonder if this really was hopeless... coming back here...

Of course it was. Now quit wasting our time and move along.

[nbarclay]

In terms of the seriousness of the offenses, taking bribes to vote a particular way is definitely far worse than perjury about what was originally a private matter. On the other hand, the fact that Clinton was President rather than merely one of 435 House members brought his actions greater attention than if a House member had done the same thing. In any case, both actions were actions by individuals, not actions by entire parties, and trying to brand either entire party with guilt over such matters is unfair. The most important thing to recognize is that neither party is without sin, so there are limits to the parties' ability to hurl stones at each other without engaging in gross hypocrisy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

It's my understanding that the reverse happened, and Monica's intentions (as she has publically stated) were to have sexual relations with the President.

As an employer, I would have only one reaction...

Run away. At full speed!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is that going to be your advice to a client who gets his dick wet in an intern.

She's not an employee?

What company should I avoid at all costs for personnel needs?

I donlt give a fig if the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders decided to Do Clinton. He was WRONG. <--- full stop

WRONG != illegal, which was your claim. Nobody here has said what Clinton did was nice or moral. The question was, was hooking up with Monica illegal? No, it wasn't.

It's not even illegal for a boss to screw an intern. A company may decide to fire the boss for doing it based on their internal rules, but it's not against the law.

Guess what? The "company" had the chance to "fire" Clinton in the impeachment bruhaha, and it didn't. The "company" said it wasn't worth the bother. END OF STORY.

If a CEO was caught having relations with a willing intern, but the board of directors voted to keep him in and the shareholders overwhelmingly said they didn't care, it would be a total non-issue.

Tell me, since you're so well versed on U.S. Employment law--what "dispute" was there that Monica could have started over the whole issue? And seeing as how she didn't start it, when she seemingly had full reason to do so...

EDIT: In fact, not a single charge levied against Clinton was about the actual sex act with Lewinsky. If it were illegal, why wasn't he even charged with anything of the sort?

I don't think you know diddly about employment law here.

[notyoueither]

It violates various empolyment laws, yes? Please tell me the US is not the SA of the West.

Is that illegal enough for you?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It violates various empolyment laws, yes? Please tell me the US is not the SA of the West.

Is that illegal enough for you?

No, it doesn't, as I've said repeatedly. What employment law was violated?

[notyoueither]

What if she told a different story? What if she said she were pressured, and taken advantage of?

You think she might have had a case? Monica vs POTUS?

That would be great TV, wouldn't it?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


First, he didn't "bang" her there. Get your facts straight. In fact, he didn't even "bang" her at all.

Second, it's private, because that's the nature of sexual affairs. It was two consenting adults engaging in sexual relations. Does it suck that he was married and was betraying his wife? Sure. But did he in any way violate his presidential duties in doing so? Nope.

Compare this to a congressman who takes bribes in return for votes and influencing Defense Dept. contracts. Apples and oranges.

Clinton wasn't indicted for the affair, which while serious of course doesn't rise to the level of malfeasance displayed by "dukie" from San Diego. He was indicted for giving false testimony under oath, which is quite serious. Ask "scooper" Libby.

As for Clinton's affair violating his presidential duties it certainly did in the broad sense of those duties. He was violating the policies that every federal employee below him had to obey on pain of termination or prosecution (for military personnnel). The fact that he made it his business to really go after the military on this same issue while as commander and chief he got a bj from a young intern (while he was on the phone to Yassir Arafat) really undercut his authority as commander in chief.

If you take a narrower view of what a president's duties are then no, Clinton didn't "violate" them. He gave all 8 State of the Union addresses etc.

[notyoueither]

And how would Clinton know what the little butterball was really after? Hmm?

He didn't.

He exposed himself, and his office, to the worst kind of approbrium, and then he lied about it, under oath.

Oh, and that last bit is illegal in all 50 states, I would imagine.

[Boris Godunov]

What if Colin Powell came forward right now and admitted that the Bush Administration had forced him to lie to the UN about Iraq's WMDs?

We can spend all days on "what ifs," but it doesn't matter, because that's not what happened. Monica herself said it was a fully consensual affair. End of story.

Nobody's accusing Clinton of using good judgment wrt Lewinsky. But he certainly did nothing illegal with her. I know that gets the panties of the righties in a twist, but that's how it is. The only charge with any merit against him was possibly the perjury charge, and even the judge in the case, while p'o'ed, didn't think it rose to the level of a criminal offense. Otherwise she would have ordered him arraigned instead of just suspending his law license.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Tell me, since you're so well versed on U.S. Employment law--what "dispute" was there that Monica could have started over the whole issue? And seeing as how she didn't start it, when she seemingly had full reason to do so...

I won't claim to be particularly well versed in employment law, but the central problem is that if a superior has a sexual relationship with a subordinate, that raises concerns about whether something improper might be going on. Even without any explicit threat, an employee might be afraid to resist a superior's advances lest doing so have a negative impact on the boss's feelings in the next performance review. Or the subordinate might be trying to use the sexual relationship to gain an advantage that has nothing to do with job performance. The question that companies and societies have to answer is whether or not those dangers are great enough to offset the encroachment against freedom if such relationships are prohibited even when both sides truly do want them.

If I recall correctly (and I may not since it's been a few years), federal policy was that such relationships are not allowed between federal employees and their subordinates. If that is correct, Clinton was doing something that any of his executive branch subordinates would have been violating the rules if they'd done.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What if Colin Powell came forward right now and admitted that the Bush Administration had forced him to lie to the UN about Iraq's WMDs?

We can spend all days on "what ifs," but it doesn't matter, because that's not what happened. Monica herself said it was a fully consensual affair. End of story.

Somehow I doubt that would be end of story had he merely been a middle manager in the employ of the federal government, especially after the perjury.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I won't claim to be particularly well versed in employment law, but the central problem is that if a superior has a sexual relationship with a subordinate, that raises concerns about whether something improper might be going on. Even without any explicit threat, an employee might be afraid to resist the employer's advances lest doing so have a negative impact on the boss's feelings in the next performance review. Or the subordinate might be trying to use the sexual relationship to gain an advantage that has nothing to do with job performance. The question that companies and societies have to answer is whether or not those dangers are great enough to offset the encroachment against freedom if such relationships are prohibited even when both sides truly do want them.

If I recall correctly (and I may not since it's been a few years), federal policy was that such relationships are not allowed between federal employees and their subordinates. If that is correct, Clinton was doing something that any of his executive branch subordinates would have been violating the rules if they'd done.

That's not the point. All of this is valid in terms of ethical concerns about the situation, but NYE said that his relationship with Monica was "illegal." I'm pointing out that it categorically wasn't. Whether it was proper, noble, wonderful, etc. isn't an issue I'm addressing.

The POTUS is not, technically speaking, a Federal employee. There's nothing that says he is bound by the same rules that bind them. At any rate, it's up to Congress to determine if he has failed to do his duty and thus remove him from office. The Senate voted, decisively, that he could keep his job, and the American people (Clinton's de facto bosses) overwhelmingly said it wasn't an issue that should cost him his job. In the end, since that is the ONLY venue where his transgressions were tried, that's all that matters.

I know rightwingers were jerking off with the prospect of Clinton getting jailed and were positively despondent when it didn't happen, but that's the law. Clinton had his day, he prevailed, and it's time to move on.

Cunningham, meanwhile, gets to see soon if he has to spend the next 10 years in prison. I don't think those two situations are comparable at all.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But he certainly did nothing illegal with her. I know that gets the panties of the righties in a twist, but that's how it is.

If that's true, why do people win judgements against employers based on facts much the same as Monica vs POTUS?

There must be some law, yes?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Somehow I doubt that would be end of story had he merely been a middle manager in the employ of the federal government, especially after the perjury.

Once again, POTUS != federal employee.

You were the one who said Clinton did something illegal in getting bjs from Lewinsky. You're flat out wrong on that point, and that's what I'm pointing out.