--- 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. > > > > 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. > > Just the opposite of what you say is, in fact, the reality.
Well, only with regard to the opposition of Republicans. I was misled by a Wikipedia article. What the Republicans opposed (in the Senate; it passed by voice vote in the House) was the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994, the whole ball of wax, including the Violence Against Women Act (Title IV of the bill) and changes to the rules of evidence (Title XXXII, Section 320935). <snip> As to the article you quote (which I managed to track down despite your not having provided a URL), here's an interesting paragraph you *didn't* quote: "Perhaps Clinton should have paid more attention to the warnings from the legal establishment. By including Molinari's amendments to the rules of evidence (No. 413 in criminal cases and No. 415 in civil cases), he may also, unwittingly, have taken a giant step toward destroying his Presidency. Late last year, lawyers for Paula Jones amended their legal complaint to allege that Clinton had "put his hand on Plaintiff's leg and started sliding it toward the hem of Plaintiff's culottes, apparently attempting to reach Plaintiff's pelvic area." The original complaint had not included this detail, and it clearly was added to help establish a sexual assault within the meaning of the new federal rules, so that Jones's lawyers could try to introduce other incidents from the President's past. Eventually, investigators working for Jones turned up seven "Jane Doe"s who were rumored to have had sexual encounters with the President. Though Jones's harassment claim was widely judged to be weak on the law, her lawyers apparently calculated that if jurors heard enough sleazy details about the President they might be inclined to punish him for his bad character, regardless of whether they were convinced that his conduct met the legal definition of harassment." Which confirms my original point: the Republicans used provisions of the crime bill (Molinari's amendments to the rules of evidence) 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. That could hardly be more different than the situation with Foley. 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/
