JCC Should Monica Lewinsky be taken seriously?

Yeah, Clinton actually kept his pants on more than 10 hours a day. Loser.

 

It was seized upon by the Republicans who were looking for anything they could use to bring Clinton down, but the man wasn't just sleeping around. Other than his history of alleged sexual harassment and worse, he was Lewinsky's boss and they had "relations" at work. Both of those things are widely (and rightly) considered unethical and people can be and are fired for it. She still gets raked over the coals by the media and even has trouble getting employment while the last time Billy Boy had to deal with criticism that seriously threatened him was c. 1999.

 

Yeah, AF, I think the difference between the examples you mentioned is that there is a huge difference between "sleeping around" (man or woman) and using one's position to extract sexual favors from your employees. So the French President had a mistress, or JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Who cares? That's a private matter between them and their family. (it is rather unethical though)

But imagine if you're an employee, and other personnel bring you into the boss's office (or hotel room) and the boss is standing there with his pants down, and expects sex, but ends up masturbating while you can't leave. That's a HUGE difference between a consenting affair. It's as Jello said, a violation of abuse of power under the law. You didn't consent to any of that behavior, and it's an extremely crude assumption for the boss to make. That's what Clinton initially got in trouble for. Lewinsky was brought up later, because she represented a pattern, and was just as inappropriate due to the intern/supervisor relationship. Collectively, I don't think such behavior would be tolerated in the slightest these days, and it certainly wouldn't be dismissed as simply being a "good ole boy from Arkansas."

Clinton being impeached was a mixed sentiment. The republicans did latch onto it, but the problem is, that with the office of President, you can't simply fire them. You have to impeach them to remove them from office. So what's the answer? I think in current times, the backlash would have been so much that he would have resigned.

 

The pesky thing about freedom of speech is people can say whatever they want to - even all those jerks that you disagree with.

However, freedom of speech goes out the window when you are testifying under oath. You are legally obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So comparing what someone says under oath to what a media outlet says is a poor analogy.

 

I don't know that Kyle is right that Clinton would have gotten 10-15 years had he been an typical American, but it still remains that he lied when he was legally bound to tell the truth, and that that crime is a felony. Does being President excuse you from being truthful in your depositions? Is criticism of that behavior solely partisanship? Ultimately I think the Republicans hurt themselves by pursuing the whole thing. But characterizing the fundamental criticism as getting mad at the President for having sex in a way some people disapprove of is inaccurate.

 

What Americans largely remember about the whole thing is the equivalent of the latenight talk show take on it.

I don't know, but being President gives a free pass for doing a whole lot of illegal things as long it's popular with the public, ignored, or hidden.

 

Ain't that the ****in' truth.

 

I know it's a joke, but I just wanted to say I wish the media were more like it was during Kennedy's administration. Many people in the media knew about Kennedy's playing around, but didn't report anything about it. Why? Oh, because, they must've had the ridiculously absurd notion that it has nothing to do with running a country.

 

I just assumed it was because Walter Cronkite was a dirty old man and tacitly approved.

 

"And that's the way I get off."

 

I certainly agree that Monica was given a hard time and was made into a national joke - and should NOT have been, but at the time I sure had the firm impression that the "whole fuss" made about Clinton and Monica was purely political. I was about as disgusted at the agenda as I thought I could get - until recent years, anyway.

What ever happened to working together to find a mutual satisfactory compromise to better the country rather than "scoring points" and stomping opponents via demonization of the"other"?

 

lol

 

See...further joking (and my words were chosen to make a "joke").

 

Bill Clinton jokes are pretty damn funny when you're drunk.

 

10-15 was a guesstimate, it was late when I wrote that up and I didn't have time to look it up. Regardless, people who DO commit perjury almost always end up going to jail. Clinton got a slap on the wrist.

 

Sorry I was just saying that I agree with you, but I wasn't willing to commit to that cuz I genuinely don't know.

 

The penalties for civil perjury were a big talking point for the Clinton camp early on, they constantly asserted that it was "only" civil perjury, that people lie in depositions all the time, and that it never results in more than a slap on the wrist. That boomeranged on them pretty badly when any number of cases where people got significant jail time for it were reported.

 

After 3 pages, the more relevant question to me is - should DarthTunick ever be taken seriously?

 

For some questions, the answer is so obvious they don't need to be asked in the first place.

 

Interesting how you say sleeping with the boss is rightfully considered unethical and grounds for termination.. Do you think a (married) executive sleeping with a 20-something intern is also unethical and grounds for termination? Or is that OK?