>On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Chris Caldwell wrote in his current NY Press column:
> >
> > >On the other hand, the President
> > >was in danger of impeachment because he himself had signed a
> > >Violence Against Women Act that was an outrage to freedom worthy of
> > >the Khmer Rouge. And not just signed it-crowed about it, and
> > >belittled those who raised libertarian objections to it. Under the
> > >act's feminist-dictated terms, any woman suing a man for the
> > >nebulous "crime" of sexual harassment was entitled to demand under
> > >oath his entire sexual curriculum vitae. And that's just what Paula
> > >Jones did.
>
>Yes, but that's not what led to impeachment charges. That came from the
>illegal leaking of the grand jury testimony, which was then made into
>trumped up perjury case. None of that has anything to do with the sexual
>harassment law, whatever its merits or demerits. Application of the
>sexual harrassment laws, even bent to their extreme and aided by several
>nearly unique perversions (including another VSOP Supreme Court decision,
>and a rare confluence of celebrity and national politics and massed enemy
>funds) were insufficient in themselves to make anything stick.
>
>Michael
well, he wouldn't have been before a grand jury if starr didn't think that he could go after evidence of clinton's behavior with other women he was alleged to have had affairs with and/or propositioned. that is, starr wanted testimony from women in clinton's liFE _after_ the paula jones affair as part of the paula jones case. iirc, a judge threw that evidence out completely later maintaining that evidence of such behavior _after_ the incident at hand had no bearing on deciding clinton's guilt. but the point is: no one would have subpoenaed lewinsky (or anyone else for related reasons) in the first place and clinton wouldn't have lied under oath.