[cycrutchfield]

Why are you making this about laws? This is about people that are employed voluntarily needing to follow certain rules of conduct for their continued employment.

This is not about some constitutional right to fuck your subordinates.

[skookumchuck]

Legal consenting adults do have a constitutional right to engage in consensual relationships, regardless of laws and moral codes otherwise. And history amply shows they will do so regardless.

Case in point - Clinton/Lewinski. That was a textbook case of sexual harassment according to Federal regulations, except that Lewinski maintains to this day that the only abuse she suffered was from the media.

[tptacek]

Your case in point is not in fact on point. Lewinsky described what happened to her as a "gross abuse of power", just a few months back. Moreover, what happened to Lewinsky served to corroborate the stories of several other women, most of whom have stories about WJC far darker than hers.

[skookumchuck]

Monica describes it as "consensual" and a "consequence of my own poor choices."

http://time.com/5130921/monica-lewinsky-now/

Monica's story doesn't "corroborate" anybody else's story about affairs with Clinton. She's not a witness to any of those others.

[tptacek]

I'm quoting her directly, and you're using a poor definition of "corroborate."

[skookumchuck]

My quotes are direct from her, per the cited article.

> poor definition

What's your definition?

[tptacek]

Your quote doesn't contradict mine. Lewinsky does not think that what happened with her and WJC was OK, and she doesn't think that just because of how the press reacted.

Regarding the word "corroborate": "to strengthen by evidence" would do nicely.

[cycrutchfield]

That's nice, but completely irrelevant.

[skookumchuck]

Oh, it's completely relevant to the claim that there cannot be consensual affairs between people at different power levels, and it doesn't get much more different than literally the most powerful man in the world and an intern.