Democrat Sex Harassment & Coverup Guidelines
david ford
introduction
Willey
Jones
Lewinsky
conclusion
This impeachment trial is about sex, and more specifically, about
sexual harassment. Here are some guidelines for you as you go about
sexually harassing women and go about getting women to break the law
on your behalf in sex harassment cases of your own making. The
harass-and-coverup guidelines are being propounded by Democrat
defenders of our impeached President.
KATHLEEN WILLEY
** You get to take your hand(s) and place it on a woman's breast(s).
In other words, you get one grope.
From former White House aide Kathleen Willey's January 1998 deposition:
Q. Did Mr. Clinton attempt to touch your breasts?
A. I think so.
Q. And what's the basis for your thinking so?
A. I have a recollection of that.
Q. Was he successful?
A. Yes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones
/docs/willey031398.htm
** You get one successful attempt at taking a woman's hand and placing
it on your erect penis.
Again from Willey's deposition:
Q. Did Mr. Clinton ever seek to take either of your hands and
place it on his body anyplace?
A. Yes.
Q. Please describe that. . . .
A. He put his hands - he put my hands on his genitals.
[snip]
Q. Well, were you able to remove your hand from his genital area
within a second or two?
A. Probably.
Q. Could you tell whether he was aroused?
A. Yes.
Q. And was he?
A. Yes.
** You get a pass on keeping letters that had been subpoenaed, and
then releasing those letters in an attempt to discredit the woman you
groped.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto
n/stories/jones032998.htm
PAULA JONES
** You get to take a woman's hand and pull her toward you.
Jones's declaration executed on 11 March 1998:
14. Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my
hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to
each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several
feet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones
/docs/jonesdec031398.htm
** You get to take your hand and slide it toward a woman's pelvis:
Again from Jones's March 1998 declaration:
15. Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying "I love the way your
hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves." While
saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and
started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not
consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the
neck, but I would not let him do so.
** You get one indecent exposure and a request for oral sex to a
subordinate state employee you just met. The more horrific you make
the occasion, the better.
Paula Jones's original complaint filed in May 1994:
21. Jones exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from
Clinton's physical proximity by walking away from him. Jones
tried to distract Clinton by chatting with him about his wife.
Jones later took a seat at the end of the sofa nearest the door.
Clinton asked Jones: "Are you married?" She responded that she
had a regular boyfriend. Clinton then approached the sofa and as
he sat down he lowered his trousers and underwear exposing his
erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it."
22. There were distinguishing characteristics in Clinton's
genital area that were obvious to Jones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones
/docs/complaint.htm
Stuart Taylor, Jr., "Paula Jones's Case Against Clinton" _The
American Lawyer_ (Nov 1996) is an interesting read. A snippet:
Yet while the ultimate truth remains elusive, this article will
show that there are only three logically possible scenarios: that
Jones lied in a most convincing manner, and in stunning,
Technicolor detail, to both Blackard and Ballentine, on May 8,
1991, and to her sisters soon thereafter; that Blackard,
Ballentine, and both sisters later conspired with Jones to
concoct a monstrous lie about the president; or that Jones's
allegations are substantially true.
http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/government/jones/staylor.html
** You get a pass on permitting your defenders and lawyers to go after
the woman you exposed yourself to, calling her trailer park trash and
attacking her reputation.
"You know, it's a two-way street...If Paula Jones insists on
having her day in court and her trial, and she really wants to
put her reputation at issue as we hear, we are prepared to do
it," Bob Bennett said.
_Newsday_. Cited at
http://www.jones-clinton.com/cheapshots.html
MONICA LEWINSKY
** You get multiple instances of oral sex performed on you by an
intern under your employ and half your age.
Lewinsky's 6 August 1998 grand jury testimony:
Q: [snip] Approximately how many times do you recall performing
oral sex on the President?
A: I think about nine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto
n/stories/mltestimony.htm Look for Aug 6 testimony, Part 2
In the Starr Report's section "III. January-March 1996: Continued
Sexual Encounters":
They continued talking as they went to the hallway by the study.
Then, with Ms. Lewinsky in mid-sentence, "he just started kissing
me."(226) He lifted her top and touched her breasts with his
hands and mouth.(227) According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President
"unzipped his pants and sort of exposed himself," and she
performed oral sex.(228)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto
n/icreport/6narritiii.htm
Compare the above with Jones's March 1998 declaration:
15. [snip] He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I
would not let him do so.
16. I exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from Mr.
Clinton's reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset
and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract
Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and
I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door. Mr. Clinton
then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear,
exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."
Compare [Jones]"he also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would
not let him do so" and [Starr]"he lifted her top and touched her
breasts with his hands and mouth" with the kissing attempt and breast
touching in this excerpt from Willey's "60 Minutes" interview:
....this hug lasted a little longer than I thought necessary, but
at the same time - I mean, I was not concerned about it. And
then he - then he - and then he kissed me on - on my mouth, and
pulled me closer to him. And . . . I just remember thinking,
"what in the world is he doing?" . . . And, I pushed back away
from him, and - he - he - he - he - he's a big man. And he - he
had his arms - they were tight around me, and he - he - he
touched me.
Touched you how?
Well, he - he - he touched my breasts with his hand, and, I - I .
. . I was just startled . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto
n/stories/quotes031698.htm
** You get a pass on participating in the hiding of subpoenaed
evidence that would help demonstrate you were getting serviced by the
intern.
** You get a pass on multiple perjuries to a civil court and to a
federal grand jury about matters related to your servicing by the
intern.
** You get a pass on ensuring the intern's cooperation and silence in
your pending harassment case by procuring that intern a job.
** You get a pass on calling your secretary into your office twice--
the first time on a Sunday just after you'd perjured yourself about
your servicing-- and telling that secretary lies so the secretary's
thoughts agree with your perjurious testimony.
** You get a pass on encouraging the intern to execute a perjurious
affidavit denying that she serviced you.
** You get a pass on allowing your lawyer to brandish that perjurious
affidavit in court in an attempt to stave off the questioning of you
about the intern.
** You get a pass on disseminating stories that the intern servicing
you had weight problems, mental instabilities, and a propensity for
"stalking" you.
An Associated Press story from 01/30/98:
White House tried to discredit Lewinsky
WASHINGTON - One White House aide called reporters to offer
information about Monica Lewinsky's past, her weight problems and
what the aide said was her nickname - "The Stalker."
Junior staff members, speaking on the condition that they not be
identified, said she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too
short, was "a little bit weird."
Little by little, ever since allegations of an affair between
President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky surfaced ten days ago, White
House sources have waged a behind-the-scenes campaign to portray
her as an untrustworthy climber obsessed with the president.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin123.htm
An early mention of "stalking" is in the Talking Points that
Lewinsky handed to Tripp; the "I" was intended to be Tripp
talking in a perjurious affidavit:
By the way, remember how I said there was someone else [a
reference to Lewinsky] that I knew about. Well, she turned out
to be a huge liar. I found out she left the WH because she was
stalking the P [the President] or something like that. Well, at
least that gets me out of another scandal I know about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinto
n/stories/talkingpoints011498.htm
CONCLUSION
Democrat defenders of the President propose some interesting harass-
and-coverup guidelines. Is this a great country or what?
Mr. President, you've spoken of a boy that came up to you and said he
wanted to be just like you.
Mr. President, when _I_ grow up, I want to be just like you.
I want to sexually harass women just like you.
I want to get women to perjure themselves on my behalf,
just like you.
I want to get women to conceal subpoenaed evidence on my behalf,
just like you.
I want to silence potential witnesses against me with gifts and jobs,
just like you.
In short, I want to fix my sex harassment court cases by committing
felony perjury and obstructing justice and witness tampering,
just like you.
Just. Like. You.
Frances Del Rio
: Outline:
: introduction
: Willey
: Jones
: Lewinsky
: conclusion
: This impeachment trial is about sex, and more specifically, about
: sexual harassment.
It is not about sexual harassment. The sex Clinton had w/Monica was 100%
consensual. Clinton was not impeached for the answers he gave in the
Paula Jones deposition, whose claim, either way, was thrown out of court
for lack of evidence.
-f-
Dave Wray
boss and an employee is sexual harassment. What about the other interns
working there that Mr. Clinton did not find the time or energy to get paying
positions in the Pentagon? Do they not have a legitimate complaint? If
someone gives the raise/promotion to someone based upon a sexual
relationship, consensual included, it is against the law. Period!
How would you feel if you missed out on a promotion and significant raise at
work (I assume you work, this may be a stretch if you are a liberal.) that
you were far and away the most qualified for, because the boss decided he'd
better give it to his secret lover in order to keep them from telling
everyone about it?
Frances Del Rio wrote in message <36b208b3$0$16...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>In talk.politics.misc david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>: Outline:
>: introduction
>: Willey
>: Jones
>: Lewinsky
>: conclusion
>
>: This impeachment trial is about sex, and more specifically, about
>: sexual harassment.
>
Frances Del Rio
: I'm sorry, but you missed the point. Even 100% consensual sex between an
: boss and an employee is sexual harassment.
Oh yeah? Ask Monica how she feels about this, especially in view of the
fact that even before she got to Washington she had told friends she
wanted to play hanky-panky w/Clinton....
What about the other interns
: working there that Mr. Clinton did not find the time or energy to get paying
: positions in the Pentagon?
Are you saying Monica *wanted* that job in the Pentagon? I think you need
to get a little more acquainted w/some of the details in this story before
you make sweeping pronuncements like this...
-f-
Michael Richmann
>
> In talk.politics.misc Dave Wray <davi...@erinetno.spamcom> wrote:
> : I'm sorry, but you missed the point. Even 100% consensual sex between an
> : boss and an employee is sexual harassment.
>
> Oh yeah? Ask Monica how she feels about this, especially in view of the
> fact that even before she got to Washington she had told friends she
> wanted to play hanky-panky w/Clinton....
It's not how see feels about it that matters. NOW and the democrats
passed sexual harassment legislation and the boss/subordinate harassment
rules were in there. Are you saying it's ok for Clinton to get a pass
on that while the rest of us are supposed to abide by these regulations?
>
> What about the other interns
> : working there that Mr. Clinton did not find the time or energy to get paying
> : positions in the Pentagon?
>
> Are you saying Monica *wanted* that job in the Pentagon? I think you need
> to get a little more acquainted w/some of the details in this story before
> you make sweeping pronuncements like this...
Do elaborate, please...
--
Mike
Michael Richmann
>
> Frances Del Rio wrote:
> >
> > In talk.politics.misc Dave Wray <davi...@erinetno.spamcom> wrote:
> > : I'm sorry, but you missed the point. Even 100% consensual sex between an
> > : boss and an employee is sexual harassment.
> >
> > Oh yeah? Ask Monica how she feels about this, especially in view of the
> > fact that even before she got to Washington she had told friends she
> > wanted to play hanky-panky w/Clinton....
>
> It's not how see feels about it that matters. NOW and the democrats
Dangit! she
We return you to your regularly schedualed programming.
david ford
david ford:
df This impeachment trial is about sex, and more specifically, about
df sexual harassment.
FDR It is not about sexual harassment. The sex Clinton had w/Monica was
FDR 100% consensual. Clinton was not impeached for the answers he gave
FDR in the Paula Jones deposition, whose claim, either way, was thrown
FDR out of court for lack of evidence.
As far as I know, Clinton didn't sexually harass Lewinsky. To
illustrate, read the events leading up to her first sexual encounter
with him as related in the Starr Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6
narritii.htm
and compare this checklist:
Sexual Harassment Flirting
feels bad feels good
one-sided reciprocal
feels unattractive feels attractive
is degrading is a compliment
feels powerless in control
power-based equality
negative touching positive touching
unwanted wanted
illegal legal
invading open
demeaning flattering
sad/angry happy
negative self-esteem positive self-esteem
Nan Stein, at http://www.feminist.org/911/harasswhatdo.html
On 31 July 1998, in their appeal of Judge Wright's dismissal, Jones's
team characterized the relationship in the following manner:
3. Mr. Clinton's behavior toward Ms. Lewinsky is evidence of his
habit of making aggressive sexual advances to young, low-ranking
employees (those who were most vulnerable and easily exploited).
Habit evidence is admissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 406. [snip]
Sexual advances by the President to a 21-year-old intern who is
working in the White House are inherently coercive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jo
nesappeal073198.htm
I wouldn't exactly call the most powerful person in the world availing
himself of the sexual services of a lowly intern "inherently coercive."
Exploitative perhaps, but not "inherently coercive."
Clinton certainly did, however, sexual harass Jones. Like Lewinsky,
Jones was a subordinate state employee. Just as Clinton repeatedly had
Lewinsky perform oral sex on him (never intercourse), so also did
Clinton ask Jones to perform oral sex on him. In short, Lewinsky's
truthful testimony would have helped Jones establish a pattern of
behavior on the part of Clinton involving
1) a preference for oral sex, and
2) helping himself to women far down on the totem pole.
Clinton sexually harassed Jones, and when Jones brought him to court,
Clinton took illegal actions to ensure that Jones didn't obtain evidence
that would have been helpful to her sexual harassment case.
While it is true that Clinton was not impeached for his 17 January 1998
perjury, he was impeached for a pattern of perjurious, false, and
misleading testimony to a federal grand jury, and one element of that
pattern appears in these statements:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, no one read me a definition then [on 17
January] and we didn't go through this exercise then. I swore an
oath to tell the truth, and I believed I was bound to be truthful
and I tried to be.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ml
testimony.htm look for Part 1 of his testimony
PRESIDENT CLINTON: But in this [17 January] deposition, Mr.
Bittman, I was doing my best to be truthful. I was not trying to
be particularly helpful to them [the Jones team], and I didn't
think I had an obligation to be particularly helpful to them....
look for Part 2
On 1 April 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed
Jones's sexual harassment case against Clinton, saying Jones "has failed
to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury."
Wright opined that
the conduct as alleged by plaintiff [Jones] describes a mere sexual
proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one, that was relatively
brief in duration, did not involve any coercion or threats of
reprisal, and was abandoned as soon as plaintiff made clear that
the advance was not welcome.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/order0
40198.htm
The Jones team vehemently disagreed with this last remark, replying in
their appeal in part,
....Wrong on all counts!
Was it a "mere sexual proposition or encounter"? The man exposed
himself! He fondled his penis in front of her and asked her to
"kiss it." Given his position the request could reasonably have
been construed as an instruction to "kiss it." And this he did to
a subordinate employee in her early twenties, whom he had met for
the first time only a few minutes earlier. If Mr. Clinton was
making a "mere sexual proposition," he certainly chose an extreme
and outrageous way to do so.
Was it "was abandoned as soon as [Mrs. Jones] made clear that the
advance was not welcome"? To the contrary, the evidence shows that
after she realized she had been brought to the room by false
pretenses, Mrs. Jones twice broke away from him and twice made it
clear that she was not interested in having sex with him. App. V at
1795-98. Then he exposed himself and directed her to "kiss it."
After she refused, he continued to fondle himself in front of her.
This obviously went "beyond all bounds of decency" because it was,
quite literally, an "indecent exposure." See Ark. Code Ann. ยง
5-14-112.
Did it "not involve any coercion or threats of reprisal"? The
District Court failed to take into account the facts that Mr.
Clinton was the Governor; that he controlled the Arkansas
Industrial Development Commission; that Mrs. Jones was a low-level
clerk working for the AIDC; that she was in her early twenties;
that he twice made a point of reminding her of his authority over
and close relationship with Dave Harrington, the Director of the
AIDC; that he even made a statement indicating that he could
control how Harrington treated Mrs. Jones; that he detained her
briefly before she left the room and sternly told her not to tell
anyone what had happened; that an armed state trooper was waiting
outside the door and met her with silence when she left; and so on.
There is an abundance of evidence of coercion and thinly veiled
threats of reprisal. The District Court simply neglected its duty
to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mrs. Jones.
[Jones's team]"The District Court simply neglected its duty to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to Mrs. Jones" when granting
Clinton's request for summary judgement. This is absolutely correct.
In dismissing the case, Wright made a poor ruling that almost certainly
would have been overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit had there not been the settlement. Jones never did get her day
in court.
constructing arguments, or, arguing for impeachment
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=422385105
guidelines proposed by Clinton defenders for sexually harassing women
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=438217962
the "Clinton was surprised" and "perjury and obstruction are acceptable
when about sex life" defenses
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=423571169
a strawman defence; "Rebuttal'"s saying of what's impeachable;
overturning an election defence; jeopardize executive branch defence
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=423146640
david ford
a fish rots from the head down
Harkin on setting bad precedents
the oath to do impartial justice
two censure proposals + Hamilton
It's bad enough when you've got corruption at the lower levels of
government, seen, for example, when individual police officers commit
perjury or hide evidence to obtain convictions. But when you've got a
corrupt leader, that's really bad. With a corrupt leader, corruption
flows from the top down. And that, Senators, is what we've got in
William Jefferson Clinton: a corrupt leader as demonstrated by his many
perjuries & obstructions of justice, and his getting others to perjure
themselves & obstruct on his behalf. Our executive branch is rotting
from the head down. With Clinton's calculated felonies and continuation
in office, make no doubt about it, the cancer on the Presidency _will_
metastasize.
Clinton likes to push the envelope. Senators, if you allow him to
remain in office despite his manifest disregard for the law, what will
that next envelope be? How many more scandals will we see out of this
administration?
On 15 January 1999, Senator Harkin objected to the use of "jurors" on
the grounds that later Senates will look to this impeachment proceeding
for precedents, and we wouldn't want to set bad precedents:
Mr. HARKIN. [snip] What we do here today does not just decide the
fate of one man. Since the Senate sits on impeachment so rarely,
and even more rarely on the impeachment of a President of the
United States, what we do here sets precedence [i.e., precedents].
Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find
out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed
our actions. To leave the impression for future generations that
we somehow are jurors and acting as a jury---- [snip] Mr. Chief
Justice, I was stating the reason because of the precedents that we
set, and I do not believe it would be a valid precedent to leave
future generations that we would be looked upon merely as jurors,
but something other than being a juror. That is why I raise the
objection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ha
rkintext011599.htm
Senators, do you really want to set a precedent that a calculated
pattern of perjurious, false, and misleading statements to a federal
grand jury is _not_ worth removing someone over? Do you really want to
set a precedent that clear witness tampering is _not_ impeachable? Do
you really want to set a precedent that clear obstruction of justice is
_not_ worthy of removal?
On 7 January 1999, Senators took an oath to do impartial justice
according to the laws and the Constitution:
The CHIEF JUSTICE. [snip] At this time I will administer the oath
to all Senators in the Chamber in conformance with Article I,
section 3, clause 6, of the Constitution and the Senate's
impeachment rules.
Will all Senators now stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial
of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according
to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?
SENATORS. I do.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the names and record the
responses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tr
anscriptb010799.htm
A defendant's high job approval rating has absolutely _nothing_ to do
with whether that defendant committed the crimes alleged. A defendant's
high job approval rating-- which is very largely a measure of how well
the economy is doing-- has absolutely _nothing_ to do with whether the
commission of those crimes is of such a nature as to necessitate
removal. Will people 75 years from now look back and say, "In its
verdict in Clinton's trial, the Senate did impartial justice according
to the Constitution and laws"?
The Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee proposed a censure
resolution that was rejected on a 22-14 vote. The resolution said in
part,
That it is the sense of Congress that -
(1) on January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the
oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States faithfully
to execute the office of President; implicit in that oath is the
obligation that the President... conduct himself in a manner that
fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton, has
egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions has
violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem
for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they
have entrusted to him;... (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly
took steps to delay discovery of the truth; ....
http://www.msnbc.com/news/222261.asp
Eric Schmitt, "Democrats' Draft on Censure Uses Harsh Words to Rebuke
Clinton for Misdeeds" _New York Times_ (6 February 1999):
A proposed resolution of censure of President Clinton, drafted by
Democratic senators... concludes that the president "gave false or
misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial
proceedings." .... Feinstein's draft resolution declares that
Clinton's misconduct "...creates disrespect for the laws of the
land." Clinton, the draft concludes, "through his conduct in this
matter has violated the trust of the American people."
http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+1224
3+3+wAAA+clinton%7Ecensure
If what these proposed censure resolutions say is correct, then Clinton
ought be _removed_; compare, if you would, the two censure proposals
above with Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist No. 65 (7 March
1788):
We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial
character of the Senate.
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object
not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a
government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are
those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or,
in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be
denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself.
http://www.c-span.org/guide/executive/investigation/federalist65.asp