--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > [I wrote:] > > > > Not only did you state the law incorrectly, but there > > > > are vastly more differences than similarities. > > > > > > Yes, and they are all -- embarassingly -- in Foley's favour. > > > > Um, no, to the contrary. > > > > Just for one thing, Clinton's affair with Lewinsky > > was not illegal; she was 22 years old at the time, > > a consenting adult (as has already been pointed out > > to you, twice now). Had Foley's pages been 22 > > years old, he would be in no legal trouble at all. > > You've gone mad. > > Foley didn't HAVE sex with the 17-year-old; THAT'S THE POINT.
No, actually the point is the age of consent for talking about and/or having sex with a younger person. > > And the law in question (the Violence Against Women > > Act of 1994), a provision of which the Republicans > > used to entrap Clinton into lying about his entirely > > legal affair with Lewinsky by making him testify > > about his past sexual behavior in an unrelated > > sexual harassment lawsuit, was strenuously opposed > > by Republicans when it was passed. > > Actually, it was strenuously opposed by civil libertarians. Some opposed it, yes. > And it was a law championed by Clinton...and that's why I brought it > up in the first place IN RESPONSE TO YOUR BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT > FOLEY HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAW THAT GOT HIM INTO TROUBLE. > > Don't you read? Shemp, it was irrelevant. There was no hypocrisy in that aspect of the Clinton situation. > You say the law was strenuously opposed by Republicans...can you > document the vote break-down by Republicans and Democrats in > Congress to back up your claim? I could, but I'm not going to bother. You know as well as I do the Republicans would have been opposed to it. > > The law that caught Foley, in contrast, was strongly > > supported by Republicans. > > > > Your error in stating the law's provision, incidentally, > > was that you claimed it required a defendant in a sexual > > harassment case to testify about past sexual harrassment > > cases the defendant had been involved in and thus > > compelled Clinton to testify about Lewinsky. > > > > That's obviously wrong just on its face, since Clinton > > had never been sued by Lewinsky. > > No, you twit and I never said he WAS being sued by Lewinski. Right. But that's the only way your description of the law could have made sense--if he had been sued by Lewinsky for sexual harassment prior to being sued by Jones: "Kinda like Clinton who pushed through the law that required defendents in civil sexual harrassment suits to answer questions about PREVIOUS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES...which is the ONLY reason he was asked the question about Lewinski in the Paula Jones deposition (which is what he lied about)." [emphasis added] You should have said "previous sexual behavior." That provision of the law had nothing to do with previous sexual harassment cases. > He was being sued by Paula Jones and that's where > he lied -- and the cause of his impeachment -- due > to the law in question. Right. Non sequitur. You misdescribed the law. > You are incredibly misinformed about virtually every aspect of this > subject. Actually, the only person who has been making mistakes in this exchange is you, Shemp. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
