Dirty Republican Congressman admits taking bribes.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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?

Why not cite some such judgments and we'll see what was the actual malfeasance that was judged against, yes?

And you do realize that being sued for something doesn't necessarily mean that act was illegal, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

You're getting hung up on criminal law. There is civil stuff too, I think.

The POTUS is not, technically speaking, a Federal employee. There's nothing that says he is bound by the same rules that bind them.

Are you angeling towards divine right?

Was he not bound by the same laws that bind every citizen and CEO of your land?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Why not cite some such judgments and we'll see what was the actual malfeasance that was judged against, yes?

And you do realize that being sued for something doesn't necessarily mean that act was illegal, right?

You're supposed to be the expert, being a Yank and working in personnel.

I'm hoping that the US is not as bleak a case as you put it forth as.

And I would say that to be successfully sued on an employment matter would mean you went the wrong side of some statute or other, yes.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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

I don't think the description "much the same" is accurate. My impression is that people only win judgments if either the person the boss had sex with files a complaint, or possibly if there is evidence that the sexual relationship led to someone else being denied a promotion that the boss's sexual partner got instead. Since neither of those conditions existed in the Clinton-Monica relationship, the facts are not the same in regard to the most central and critical issues.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're getting hung up on criminal law. There is civil stuff too, I think.

Think? Why not try, you know, citing some actual law that says an employer and an intern can't get it on?

Are you angeling towards divine right?

Was he not bound by the same laws that bind every citizen and CEO of your land?

Wtf? Are you daft? I explicitly was referring to the federal prohibitions against federal employees engaging in such behavior.

And WHAT LAW IS IT THAT BINDS EVER CITIZEN AND CEO? I've asked you several times to actually cite a law, and you've just dodged the question. My entire point is that there IS NO LAW in the U.S. prohibiting consenting sexual relations between employers and subordinates.

[notyoueither]

I haven't dodged the question. I have asked you to step up and be a man, admit that your leader was wrong.

I am not a lawyer in the US, nor do I work in the personnel sector of your economy. You do, and the fact that you are standing up for this sleeze bag on this topic is very sad, for you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by nbarclay


I don't think the description "much the same" is accurate. My impression is that people only win judgments if either the person the boss had sex with files a complaint, or possibly if there is evidence that the sexual relationship led to someone else being denied a promotion that the boss's sexual partner got instead. Since neither of those conditions existed in the Clinton-Monica relationship, the facts are not the same in regard to the most central and critical issues.

I was thinking facts along the lines of.. I have a dress with his DNA on it, now the corporations balls are mine.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're supposed to be the expert, being a Yank and working in personnel.

I'm hoping that the US is not as bleak a case as you put it forth as.

I see nothing bleak about two consenting adults being able to engage in a physical relationship and it not being considered illegal. Call me a radical, but I define that as "freedom."

And I would say that to be successfully sued on an employment matter would mean you went the wrong side of some statute or other, yes.

If there were such a statute--one that simply laid a blanket prohibition on employer/employee sex--you might have a point. But there is none. Such judgements are always about an abuse of power by the employer. While you've tried to insinuate that's what Clinton did, there's not a shred of evidence supporting that, and there's evidence Monica deliberately targeted him for a sexual affair (testimony from friends and acquaintances in Seattle).

Courts are faced with accusations of sexual quid pro quo from employees who have had affairs on a fairly regular basis--and MOST of the cases don't go anywhere. The Courts tend to require a bit of evidence from the plaintiffs that the employer did indeed demand quid pro quo. The fact that the defendant is just an employer of the plaintiff is not enough for a judgement against him in such cases.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My entire point is that there IS NO LAW in the U.S. prohibiting consenting sexual relations between employers and subordinates.

And there's no statute, or common law, whatsoever that governs employer-employee relationships?

Is that the case?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither

And I would say that to be successfully sued on an employment matter would mean you went the wrong side of some statute or other, yes.

Not really. A lot of how sexual harassment law is defined is more a matter of precedents set by the courts than by the letter of the law itself.

As I understand it, there are two basic concepts in sexual harrassment law in the U.S. One is quid pro quo arrangements in which workers are expected to perform sexual favors for a boss in exchange for some kind of reward (or for keeping a job at all) or are offered job advancement in exchange for sexual favors. The other aspect revolves around the words "hostile work environment," so that if the way workers are treated as a result of their sex produces a hostile work environment, they can sue. The exact lines regarding both of those issues have been drawn by the courts in interpreting the original legislation.

There is no evidence that Clinton's relationship with Monica involved either a quid pro quo arrangement with her or the creation of a hostile work environment. Therefore, if my understanding is correct, there is no evidence that Clinton's actions were in violation of general U.S. civil law regarding sexual harassment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I haven't dodged the question. I have asked you to step up and be a man, admit that your leader was wrong.

How disingenuous of you. I said what Clinton did was bad. What I am arguing against is your flatly wrong contention that it was illegal.

I am not a lawyer in the US, nor do I work in the personnel sector of your economy. You do, and the fact that you are standing up for this sleeze bag on this topic is very sad, for you.

It's sad that I stand up to correct your falsehoods about U.S. law? Oh yes, heaven help me.

Again, I never approved of Clinton's actions, so this is just another blatant strawman. Last refuge of the defeated.

What I think is sad is that you can't get over the fact that what Clinton did was a tempest in a teapot compared to the ordinary, every day corruption that runs rampant in our government. Find me an actual, you know, LEGAL issue and I'll be happy to discuss it. But your puritan wailing over Monica's eagerly giving hummers moves me not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And there's no statute, or common law, whatsoever that governs employer-employee relationships?

Is that the case?

As I and nbarclay have pointed out repeatedly, nothing wrt to consentual relationships. Since there's no quid pro quo or harrassment issue, there's no legal issue as to their relationship. The ONLY legal issues that were in play for Clinton were his actions in hiding the affair, which were entirely separate legal matters.

[notyoueither]

And no exposure to the office of POTUS whatsoever?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I was thinking facts along the lines of.. I have a dress with his DNA on it, now the corporations balls are mine.

Only if the person in your hypothetical example is willing to commit perjury and claim that the relationship was not by mutual consent. And even then, if the case would go to court, a jury would have to believe the plaintiff over the defendant.

[notyoueither]

There's the rub, Nathan.

His first mistake was biting the forbidden fruit. This isn't 1820, or 1920, and organizations get severely punished for transgressions by people in power positions. It could have been right, or wrong, but that gets his ass fired if I have vote in 'my' corporation.

The second mistake, and more serious, was lying about it to a judge. That gets your ass thrown in jail in 'my' country.