Monica Lewinsky claims that her sexscapades with Clinton has made it difficult for her to get a job. I find it very unlikely that a woman made famous for blowing her boss would ever get turned down by a man looking to hire someone. References? Her references were front page news. She's an ideal hire.
please log in to view this image Tom Steyer is running a vigorous mission to impeach the president, even if that means the hard-right Mike Pence replacing him. Steyer’s cagier about his own presidential ambitions. Definite Maybe Billionaire Tom Steyer Wants to Impeach Trump—Then Maybe Succeed Him https://www.thedailybeast.com/billionaire-tom-steyer-wants-to-impeach-trumpthen-maybe-succeed-him
'Trump with better hair': how Obama White House saw Boris Johnson http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other...boris-johnson/ar-AAy32dj?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp
Surely it's inadmissible in a court of law? Even if it's explosive politically we have seen that trump really doesn't care about that. If it can't be used in court he will carry on regardless.
Client confidentiality can be dismissed by a judge if they believe the lawyer was part of the crime. The special prosecutor goes before the judge who will order a panel not involved with the investigation to go through evidence collected in the raids and only hand over evidence of wrong doing directly related to Meullers or the New York AG cases.
Clinton on #MeToo: Why I Never Said Sorry to Monica Lewinsky http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...nica-lewinsky/ar-AAye2Pe?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp
Lewinsky wasn't raped, pressured, or sexually harassed. Like many women she had an attraction to a man in power and had consensual relations with him. I don't know about the other women Bill was involved with, but it's ridiculous to say Lewinsky was a victim here. The inclusion of sexual encounters you regret years later under the rape and sexual harassment umbrella is absurd and trivialises real rape and sexual harassment.
very gray area. Anyone who is in a position of power theorectically shouldn't be doing anything to a subordinate. I personally don't think theres anything wrong but in law it has always been a minefield and in this case, lewinsky is seen as the victim no two ways about it.
In many companies it is a sackable offense because it leads to a conflict of interest. It isn't rape though. It isn't sexual assault either unless it is implied that not having a relationship would damage their career. Usually it is the underling chasing the boss because women like men in power. There are letters written during the time that Lewinsky was Lewinskying the president that show that she was all for the relationship. This wasn't a case of any sort of coersion. Bill was a dick for letting it happen, not least because he is a married man... ... But sexual assault, rape. Not a chance. Just regret. There was a story here in the US a year or two ago. A college student got charged with rape (and convicted). Him and his girlfriend were both virgins and had planned this romantic night together. She had excitedly discussed it with her friends how they were going to end each other's virginity. Afterwards she regretted having had premarital sex and charged him with rape, even though she had consented that night and had premeditated the act. She said she decided afterwards she was too young and it was a sin. She won. It's absurd the direction sexual harassment is going where you don't have to just have consent during and before the act, you have to ensure you will have consent AFTERWARDS too.
Sweden recently passed a law basically "yes means yes" instead of "no means no". Two people have sex, but don't verbally consent... It's rape. Technically by this law I rape my wife multiple times a week. Of course she is willing, and of course I wouldn't touch her if it wasn't something she wanted... But by the Swedish definition I am raping her. In most countries now, two people get drunk and have sex. Technically the man is a rapist (never the woman) because being drunk a woman cannot consent to sex. A man is still responsible for anything he does when drunk though. I understand the reason for this law, to stop men praying on women by deliberately getting them drunk or taking advantage of drunk women. It's to let women feel safe drinking in public... It's still a dangerous law though and could make well intending people into rapists in the eye of the law. Don't get me wrong. I agree women deserve protecting and sexual harrasment and rape are very bad and serious crimes... I'm just worried that too much is being called a crime that really isn't anything other than a woman regretting a previous encounter later. Regretting a previous sexual encounter shouldn't be rape.
On a tangent and on women's rights. From the BBC. I'll believe that when I see a fat miss America with warts on her face and an asymmetrical smile.
