--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > 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.
No, it is YOUR selective definition of the word "cases". I was using it to describe an occurance or instance. The first entry from the dictionary for the word "cases" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cases is: "An instance of something; an occurrence; an example: a case of mistaken identity." ...the legal use of "cases" doesn't come in until the 7th definition. > > > 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/
