Bill Clinton's Worst Nightmare - Monica Is Writing A Book

[QUOTE=LexusLover;3228562]

Right back at you: What right back at me?

Before you go make sexual advances toward your employees (if you have any and if you have enough to qualify for EEOC attention) you should consult an attorney. This has nothing to do with the case at hand. Your command of the case law interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is lacking! Not in this case. This is straight forward. You don't go cherry pick provisions from the website and cite that as "authority" .... the Federal Judge aint' gonna buy it!No shit sherlock. You "ain't" no federal judge. I don't cite my post as authority. I cite the website. My "cherry picking" was grabbing some key relevant points to back up my statement. None that I left behind contradicted the ones I took.

apples and oranges ... coworkers vs. supervisors.

I can cite you appellate opinions involving so called "consentual" relationships. The employees win fat judgments and the "supervisor" gets canned, not the victim-employee ... and that is exactly what HE or she is considered ... by that I mean that there are sexual harrassment cases upheld on appeal in which the employee is a male and the supervisor is a female. Why cite anything but this case? That's what we're talking about. And you have completely ignored every point I made while you backpeddle and throw a bunch of shit to obscure the fact that there was no harrasment. The following answers all of your "buts" and "citing" and clearly states each incident is investigated on a case by case basis.
In this case the facts are straight forward. She never claimed harassment.
When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis

The issue in the Clarance Thomas hearngs, BTW, was not whether it was "consensual" it was that it happened in the first place.The woman filed a suit. That makes the case completely different. Talk about apples and oranges. The irony of that hearing is that Clarence Thomas established the initial sexual harassment guidelines for the EEOC ... at that time same sex relationships were not considered as a legitimate basis for a complaint. That was an add on and supervisors were covered then as well ... meaning a male employee and a male supervisor.What does this have to do with Bill and Monica? What don't you understand about case by case basis?
You are ignoring the fact that there is consensual sex going on. There are specific guidelines to determine if the law is broken.

The "she was asking for it" days are long gone.There wasn't any aspect of this in the case.

Clinton knew that ... that is why he lied. FYI: FYI Yeah, I know Hilary knew. For quite some time. Hillary already knew about his shit. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Cherry picking? I grabbed a few that applied directly to this instance. Did I ignore any that invalidated the ones I posted?
No, I didn't.

The bottom line is that you said sex between them was illegal because of their relative positions. It's not. You didn't refute a single thing I said. You gave no examples that were close.
.

Monica may nt beable to have a career as a provider either cause of the fact she told the whole world what happened. Alot of men may think twice about seeing her cause of what she may keep to blackman him with. Maybe her best bet would be write a book of how to use a cigar for sex in 100 ways or a tell how book of charming a man and keeping proof of being together and nt seem like a nasty person for keeping a dirty dress in her closet.

The bottom line is that you said sex between them was illegal because of their relative positions. It's not. You didn't refute a single thing I said. You gave no examples that were close.
. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Paula Jones filed a suit. Perjury is illegal. Sexual harassment is defined and prohibited by federal regulations.

Two basic types of unlawful harassment

1. Quid Pro Quo Harassment – "This for That"

Quid pro quo harassment generally results in a tangible employment decision based upon the employee's acceptance or rejection of unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, but it can also result from unwelcome conduct that is of a religious nature. This kind of harassment is generally committed by someone who can effectively make or recommend formal employment decisions (such as termination, demotion, or denial of promotion) that will affect the victim.
Examples:

• supervisor offers preferential treatment/promotion if subordinate sexually cooperates or joins supervisor's religion.

2. Hostile Work Environment Harassment

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/cr...harassment.htm



1. SUBJECT: Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment.

In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998), the Supreme Court made clear that employers are subject to vicarious liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. The standard of liability set forth in these decisions is premised on two principles: 1) an employer is responsible for the acts of its supervisors, and 2) employers should be encouraged to prevent harassment and employees should be encouraged to avoid or limit the harm from harassment. In order to accommodate these principles, the Court held that an employer is always liable for a supervisor’s harassment if it culminates in a tangible employment action.

IV. Harassment by Supervisor That Results in a Tangible Employment Action

A. Standard of Liability
An employer is always liable for harassment by a supervisor on a prohibited basis that culminates in a tangible employment action. No affirmative defense is available in such cases. The Supreme Court recognized that this result is appropriate because an employer acts through its supervisors, and a supervisor’s undertaking of a tangible employment action constitutes an act of the employer.

B. Definition of “Tangible Employment Action”

A tangible employment action is “a significant change in employment status.”28 Unfulfilled threats are insufficient. Characteristics of a tangible employment action are:

1. A tangible employment action is the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates, as demonstrated by the following :

• it requires an official act of the enterprise;
• it usually is documented in official company records;
• it may be subject to review by higher level supervisors; and
• it often requires the formal approval of the enterprise and use of its internal processes.

2. A tangible employment action usually inflicts direct economic harm.

3. A tangible employment action, in most instances, can only be caused by a supervisor or other person acting with the authority of the company.

Examples of tangible employment actions include:

• hiring and firing;
• promotion and failure to promote;
• demotion;
• undesirable reassignment;
• a decision causing a significant change in benefits;
• compensation decisions; and
• work assignment.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html


Lewinsky was reassigned, and she was very despondent. Read the New Your Times.



Toscano v. Nimmo

Another delicate area involves a consensual sexual relationship between a manager and another employee that adversely affects others. This type of case involves, for example, an employee (either male or female) who has failed to receive a promotion and alleges that the promotion was in fact given to a female employee who did grant sexual favors to the supervisor. In the case of Toscano v. Nimmo (1983) 570 F.Supp. 1197, 1199, the court in this type of situation held:

In concluding that there existed a Title VII violation, the court referred to regulations enacted by the EEOC, specifically, 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1604.11(g), which states:

"Other related practices: Where employment opportunities or benefits are granted because of an individual's submission to the employer's sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, the employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified for but denied that employment opportunity or benefit."

http://www.nchc.com/display-employme...e.asp?EmpID=26


And Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick have their stories as well.

Well, maybe now we'll actually find out what the "unique" feature of Slick Willy's willy is. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Has this been bothering you all these years?

Nope. Wrong again.

What Clinton did was illegal sex, and you are livid about it. What most reviewers here are writing about is illegal sex, and there is no such outrage. That is what I see as hypocritical ABOUT THOSE POSTERS.

The fact that some teachers, bosses, etc are prosecuted and some are not is wrong in my mind--I never once said it wasn't--but that is the hypocracy of the legal system--it doesn't make the posters here any less hypocritical.

If you have had illegal sexual encounters and are bashing someone else for also having illegal sexual encounters that is the definition of a hypocrit. No sense compounding your guilt by lieing as well. Of course we all know most who are bashing Clinton for his sexual antics are really doing it for very different reasons. If he was a conservative senator from Louisiana, or a right wing preacher they would be so increadibly willing to forgive and forget (and if "she" was hot they would be jealous). Yet more hypocracy FROM THOSE POSTING HERE.

PS: I most certainly have a grip...unlike so many on here. Comment on what I said, don't rerun your prepositioned Anti-Clinton Script #628.

You need to get a grip .... there are a number of areas of the law in which "consensual" sex is criminalized, punished, and prohibited ... the general areas are age and relationship related ... one topic is taboo on this board ... you know that one!

the other has to do with persons who are in positions of "authority" e.g. cops, teachers, employers-supervisors ...

what IS hypocritical about this topic IS ...

that "cops, teachers, and employers-supervisors" get punished and charged, but ..

... Bill Clinton DID NOT!

Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), et seq, outlines the basis for companies being held "presumptively" liable for discrimination based on sex when supervisors in the company engage in "consensual" sexual activity with subordinates. ....

you can slice it any way you want to and raise all the insults you can dream up, but when the boss starts hitting on the hot babes in the business the boss and his company are "going down" ... and I don't mean oral sex! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You two are soooo Kool Aid dumb and blind, and you two are the hypocrites. Perjury is a crime and subject to prosecution under the law, when caught.
Are you having trouble reading today? (Rhetorical question.) Didn't I say "Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game." I never justified his perjury and I was (and am) all for his being charged on that count. But I reiterate: anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit if they complain about the sex with ML.

P4P is a crime subject to prosecution under the law, if caught. Can either one of you Dim-witted yahoos deny those facts? Again you have difficulty reading English I never denied it, in fact that was the point of my arguing that you are a hypocrit. I reference you post at http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=37589

Furthermore, what Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer did on multiple occasions is against federal regulations and prosecutable under those same regulations. Yep. Never said it wasn't.

Like LL pointed out, other government employees would be dismissed with cause. Others would have been jailed for perjury. Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer suffered neither consequence; that's hypocrisy! See my comment on LL's incorrect post, it applies here to. Because the legal system is imperfect does not mean YOU are not a hypocrit. You are. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.

What did Juanita Broaddrick gain from her allegation? What did Kathleen Willey gain? This kind of blame the victim stuff is really despicable. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Was it rape???

Paula Jones filed a suit. So what? Lewinsky didn't. What does this have to do with Bill and Monica? Nothing. Perjury is illegal. Again, so what? There was no perjury in Bill's sexual harassment suit with Monica because there was no suit. Sexual harassment is defined and prohibited by federal regulations. That is correct but so what? Clinton wasn't charged with sexual harassment or sued under Title IX by Lewinsky. You claiming Bill is guilty is nothing more than your opinion and contrary to the facts.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Any questions?

Are you having trouble reading today? (Rhetorical question.) Didn't I say "Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game." I never justified his perjury and I was (and am) all for his being charged on that count. But I reiterate: anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit if they complain about the sex with ML.

Again you have difficulty reading English I never denied it, in fact that was the point of my arguing that you are a hypocrit. I reference you post at http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=37589

Yep. Never said it wasn't.

See my comment on LL's incorrect post, it applies here to. Because the legal system is imperfect does not mean YOU are not a hypocrit. You are. Originally Posted by Old-T

The fact that Lewinsky is now pursuing this book option cast doubts on whether it was "consensual sex" in a "quid pro quo" superior/subordinate relationship! She expected something other than what she got out of the relationship, and now she has announced she is writing a book.

Any questions? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Paula Jones filed a suit against Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer for sexual harassment. Kathleen Willey claimed Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer groped her which is a form of sexual harassment. Junita Broaddrick claimed Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer raped her, the worst manifestation of sexual harassment.

Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer perjured himself in the Paula Jones trial. Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer obstructed justice in the Paula Jones case. Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer received a slap on the wrist for transgressions that would have cost others their jobs and their freedom. Any questions?

The fact that Lewinsky is now pursuing this book option cast doubts on whether it was "consensual sex" in a "quid pro quo" superior/subordinate relationship! She expected something other than what she got out of the relationship, and now she has announced she is writing a book.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Might be as you hypothisize--might not be. Might know more when we see what the book says.

Might be as you hypothisize--might not be. Might know more when we see what the book says. Originally Posted by Old-T

Good enough.

Has this been bothering you all these years? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Bill Clinton has Peyronie's disease; that means a severely bent penis. That came out in Paula Jone's law suit. In an earlier day, Clinton would have spent the rest of his life in hiding, out of sheer embarrassment; instead he becomes a rock star. He's the perfect icon for the modern day Democratic party.

Another interesting fact, that was revealed in the Starr Report, was that Monica didn't just give Clinton blowjobs in the oval office. She also gave him *rimjobs, or as the Starr Report calls it "oral-anal contact".

* Footnote 220.

Somebody has "morphed" (again) what I said in an effort to make their point ... it went from a CEO getting canned for having sex with a subordinate to its "illegal sex" .... and equal to prostitution. So, I'm hypocritical??????

That's the issue with a blog, board, and anonymous postings ... no accountability for the bullshit.

If one doesn't like the facts, change them to fit one's scenario so one can be "correct"?

Let me be perfectly clear ... I said Bill Clinton committed perjury .. and he is a sexual predator..... I also said that a CEO would have been canned for what he did. It's sexual harassment, because he was a "superior" in the same outfit.

He did it in the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas and he did in the White House.

Now twist those statements to make "Your" point?

He did it in the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas and he did in the White House Originally Posted by LexusLover

I can't comment. I did not see him having sex in the Governor's mansion in Arkansas or the White House.

Perhaps LL witnessed both. Damn peeping toms!